CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vainchenker v. Vainchenker

The plaintiff husband appealed portions of a Supreme Court judgment concerning his divorce and ancillary relief. Key points of contention included the equitable distribution of his medical license, the maintenance awarded to his wife, and his contribution to their eldest child's college expenses. The appellate court affirmed that the husband's New York medical license constituted a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution due to his enhanced earning capacity from training during the marriage, and upheld the wife's share. However, the court found the maintenance award to the wife was an improvident exercise of discretion and deleted it, leading to a recalculation and increase in child support. Additionally, the judgment was modified to ensure child support payments would be credited towards college expenses when the eldest child resides away from home.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetMedical LicenseMaintenanceChild SupportCollege ExpensesDivorceAppellate ReviewEnhanced Earning CapacityFamily Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. 15-24-00133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Insight Investments, LLC v. Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

This document is an Appellant’s Opposed Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief filed by Insight Investments, LLC. Insight is appealing a trial court order from the 380th District Court, Collin County, Texas, which mandated a supersedeas bond of $5,903,679.08. Insight argues that the underlying judgment primarily grants equitable relief and attorney’s fees, without specifying a monetary award for the breach of contract claim, and that the trial court's order was issued without a hearing. Insight initially posted a $500 cash deposit, believing it sufficient to cover attorney’s fees, and now seeks an emergency stay from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to prevent execution of the judgment pending a review of the supersedeas amount.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefSupersedeas BondAppealBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefAttorneys' FeesTrial Court OrderAppellate ProcedureStay of Execution
References
20
Case No. 196-1545-260
Regular Panel Decision

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace/Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc. (In Re Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp.)

The case involves a motion by Grace-Lansing and Grace Industries, Inc. (Grace) to remand an adversary proceeding back to the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, and for relief from an automatic stay. The Debtor, Montague Pipeline Technologies, Inc., had removed the action, which concerned the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Grace, after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Court, presided over by Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein, applied the 'Drexel factors' to evaluate the request for remand, concluding that equitable grounds favored sending the action back to state court due to efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate, predominance of state law, and comity. The Court also granted Grace's motion for relief from the automatic stay, finding 'cause' based on the 'Sonnax factors,' to allow the state court to finalize the arbitration award and fix Grace's claim, thereby facilitating the Debtor's reorganization plan.

BankruptcyRemandAutomatic StayArbitration AwardState LawFederal Arbitration ActJudicial EconomyComityChapter 11Dispute Resolution
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Equitable General Insurance Co. of Texas v. Yates

Thomas Yates was initially awarded workers' compensation for injuries while employed by Schepps Dairy. Equitable General Insurance Company of Texas, the carrier, obtained a summary judgment against Yates on grounds of untimely claim filing. Yates' subsequent motion for a new trial was conditionally granted upon payment of $500 in attorney's fees to opposing counsel. After Yates filed an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals reversed, and this court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that while conditional grants of new trial are generally permissible, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion in the face of an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay the imposed monetary condition.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAttorney's FeesConditional GrantAbuse of DiscretionAffidavit of Inability to PayTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' CompensationEquitable ConsiderationsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 13-24-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Zachary K. Mills, Robin Mills, and Edgegrove Homes, LLC v. Deborah Rupp and Edward Rupp

The Millses appealed a trial court's judgment awarding equitable relief, damages, and attorney's fees to the Rupps. The dispute arose from the Millses' plans to build a two-story home, allegedly violating deed restrictions for single-story residences and lateral setbacks in the Treadwell Subdivision. The Rupps' claims included breach of contract and enforcement of deed restrictions. The trial court sided with the Rupps, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable relief and attorney's fees under the Texas Property Code, but reversed the damage award and related attorney's fees due to insufficient evidence supporting actual damages.

Deed RestrictionsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefAttorney's FeesMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentProperty LawTexas Appellate LawReal Estate Litigation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spodick v. Gold

The plaintiff, International, brought an action against Local 210 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and individual defendants Gold and Berger, seeking an accounting, money judgment, and equitable relief. The plaintiff claimed Local 8, a former affiliate, was indebted for unpaid per capita tax and disaffiliated to merge with Local 210. The court found no basis for accounting or equitable relief, stating the relationship was a simple debtor-creditor one and Local 8's actions were in its members' interests. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants as derivative. All causes of action were deemed insufficient, and the motions for dismissal were granted, allowing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint solely against Local 210 based on a theory of assumption of debt.

Dismissal of ComplaintInsufficiency of ComplaintAmended ComplaintUnion DisaffiliationUnion MergerPer Capita TaxDebtor-Creditor RelationshipEquitable Relief DeniedDerivative LiabilityAssumption of Debt Theory
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Texaco, Inc.

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a racial discrimination class action lawsuit brought by approximately 200 salaried African-American employees against Star Enterprise and related corporate entities. The plaintiffs allege company-wide discriminatory practices in promotion, compensation, and career advancement, specifically challenging the subjective Performance Management Program (PMP) and the absence of formal job posting systems. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) for equitable relief and Rule 23(b)(3) for legal relief, including compensatory and punitive damages. The decision includes provisions for a bifurcated trial structure to ensure Seventh Amendment rights are protected and addresses statute of limitations concerns by applying equitable tolling due to the plaintiffs' reliance on a prior, related class action.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationClass actionTitle VIISection 1981Disparate impactDisparate treatmentClass certificationSubjective evaluationPerformance management program
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Nimmons

This case concerns an action for equitable relief and statutory damages under ERISA, brought by former shareholders, officers, directors, and beneficiaries of W.P. Constructors, Inc.'s pension plan (Plaintiffs) against Donald S. Nimmons (Defendant), the plan's trustee and later owner of the corporations. Plaintiffs alleged Nimmons breached his fiduciary duties by causing the plan to lose its qualified status, mismanaging assets for personal gain, and attempting to recapture excess plan assets. The central issue revolved around the validity of competing pension plans and the rightful claimant to approximately $1 million in surplus assets. The court found Nimmons liable for numerous breaches of fiduciary duty, dismissed his counterclaims, and ruled that Plaintiffs were entitled to damages and equitable relief. A substitute trustee was ordered to be appointed to terminate the plan, with excess assets to be distributed to participants as per the Stark and Frahm plan.

ERISAFiduciary DutyPension PlanDefined Benefit PlanBreach of Fiduciary DutyPlan TerminationExcess AssetsRecapture of AssetsStatutory DamagesEquitable Relief
References
26
Case No. 9313
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power & Light Co. v. Caballero

Richard A. Caballero, a former lineman for Central Power & Light Company (CPL), sued CPL for employment discrimination based on a "handicap" under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Caballero, awarding him $33,000 for past loss of earnings and $200,000 for future loss of earning capacity, along with attorney's fees. CPL appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting damages in an equitable proceeding, submitting the cause to a jury for equitable issues, and awarding unauthorized damages. The appellate court agreed with CPL, holding that the Act provides for equitable relief, not monetary damages for future earning capacity, and that a jury cannot determine equitable issues. The court also noted that Caballero's interim earnings and disability benefits should have been credited against any back pay. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Act.

Employment DiscriminationHandicap DiscriminationDisability RightsCommission on Human Rights ActEquitable ReliefJury Trial RightsDamages LimitationBack PayLoss of Earning CapacityStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,876 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational