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. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Monique M.

The mother appealed a fact-finding order that found she abused her child Sonique M. and derivatively abused Monique M., Treston D., and Daymondray T., and two dispositional orders. The evidence showed the mother allowed her boyfriend, against whom an order of protection was issued, back into her home, where he sexually abused Sonique M., and the mother failed to intervene. However, the Family Court erred by issuing the dispositional orders without first conducting a mandatory dispositional hearing, which violated due process. The appellate court reversed the orders of disposition and remitted the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge due to concerns about the original judge's impartiality.

Child AbuseDerivative AbuseDispositional HearingFamily Court Act Article 10Parental JudgmentOrder of Protection ViolationSexual AbuseJudicial ImpartialityDue ProcessRemittitur
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Timmons v. Special Insurance Services

Kenny Timmons, an employee of Sibon Beverage Corporation, filed a lawsuit after his health care claims were denied following an injury. Sibon had a self-funded Employee Benefit Plan administered by American Medical Security (AMS) and an Excess Loss Insurance Policy with United Wisconsin Life Insurance Company (UWLIC). Timmons sued AMS, UWLIC, and Robert Hall (Sibon's owner), asserting state law claims and, alternatively, ERISA claims. The court found Timmons' state law claims preempted by ERISA and dismissed them. For the ERISA claims, the court found AMS was a fiduciary and a fact issue existed regarding its breach of fiduciary duties. Similarly, a fact issue remained for UWLIC's fiduciary status. The court also denied Robert Hall's motion for summary judgment on the ERISA claims, determining he was the alter ego of Sibon and fact issues remained regarding his fiduciary status and other defenses.

ERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlanSelf-Funded PlanExcess Loss InsurancePlan AdministrationAlter Ego LiabilityState Law ClaimsFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1991

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' alleged negligence in the control and operation of a truck in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Further issues of fact were identified concerning the reasonableness of precautionary steps taken by the defendants in the face of striking workers' picketing. Additionally, the court noted triable issues regarding the foreseeability of injury and whether an alleged intervening criminal act constituted foreseeable harm shaping the duty of care.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityIntervening ActTruck OperationPicket LineWorker StrikeCPLR 3212Appellate Affirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed this order, citing the existence of triable issues of fact. Specifically, the court found questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff qualified as a "recalcitrant worker" under Labor Law § 240 (1) and concerning the plaintiff's comparative negligence under Labor Law § 241 (6). The decision reiterated that summary judgment is granted only when there are no triable factual issues, and courts should avoid making credibility determinations.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerComparative NegligenceLabor LawAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactQueens County
References
8
Case No. 2-08-027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2008

Terry Simmons v. Elmow Holdings, Inc. F/K/A Rio Pumping Services, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered against appellant Terry Simmons on statute of limitations grounds in his personal injury suit against appellee Elmow Holdings f/k/a Rio Pumping Services, Inc. Simmons argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because Elmow should have been estopped from asserting a limitations defense, there were disputed issues of material fact regarding due diligence in obtaining service, he was not given the opportunity to amend his summary judgment affidavits, and there were disputed issues regarding the date the cause of action accrued. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Simmons failed to preserve his complaint for review regarding sanctions and that no disputed material fact issues were raised concerning the accrual date or due diligence in effecting service.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceService of ProcessAppellate CourtTexas LawJudicial AdmissionAffidavitWaiver of Service
References
18
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04380 [230 AD3d 1122]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2024

Injai v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC

The plaintiff, Ronny Injai, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder at a construction site in February 2019. He was performing work on property owned by Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC, where Zhong Wang Construction Services, Inc., served as the general contractor. Injai commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). He sought summary judgment on the issue of liability for the Labor Law claims. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion, citing triable issues of fact regarding the accident's occurrence and the ladder's security. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's submissions failed to conclusively eliminate all triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactContractor Liability
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 13,371 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