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

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
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. 14-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

in Re Park Memorial Condominium Association, Inc., Sameer Soleja, Lynn Tibbe, Michael Kirk, Barbara Belbot, and Jonathan Simon

This mandamus proceeding arose from a dispute between a condominium association and residents over the ownership of insurance proceeds. The trial court ordered the Association to distribute funds to the unit owners (Homeowners) without proper pleadings requesting such relief. The Association, as relators, argued that this violated their due process rights and was an abuse of discretion, as disputed fact issues were resolved without trial or summary judgment. The appeals court held that the trial court deprived the Association of due process by granting relief not requested in pleadings and summarily disposing of a disputed fact issue, making the orders void. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to set aside its distribution orders.

MandamusDue ProcessPleadingsTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionCondominium LawInsurance ProceedsRule 11 AgreementVoid OrderAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. 03A01-9901-CH-00030
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1999

Michael Phillips v. Morrill Electric, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the defendant-employer, Morrill Electric, Inc., in an action for breach of employment contract brought by plaintiff Michael Phillips. Phillips, hired as a Special Assistant to the President for a five-year term, was terminated for "cause" following a company restructuring and reassignment to a significantly lower-level production job. The Trial Court upheld the termination, but the Court of Appeals found that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the true cause of Phillips's termination, specifically whether it was due to restructuring or poor performance. Furthermore, the appellate court identified a genuine issue of fact concerning whether Phillips received adequate written notice specifying the reasons for his termination as required by the employment agreement. Consequently, the summary judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for a full trial to resolve these factual disputes.

Employment contractWrongful terminationSummary judgmentBreach of contractDemotionNotice requirementMaterial factsAppellate reviewTennessee lawEmployment dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyna v. Bell

Tony Reyna, an employee of Lavonne Bell, d/b/a City Iron and Metal Company, sustained a back injury while lifting a heavy industrial battery. Bell, who did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, was sued for personal injury by Reyna, alleging negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace, proper supervision, and adequate equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell, prompting Reyna's appeal. The appellate court examined the disputed facts, including Reyna's claims of repeatedly requested but uninstalled equipment like a chain hoist and limited forklift availability. The court determined that these disputed facts raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding Bell's alleged negligence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe WorkplaceEquipment FailureWorkers' Compensation AbsenceBack InjuryAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
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

William S. Archer, Inc. v. Goldstein

Plaintiff, William S. Archer, Inc., sought an injunction against the defendant union, General Automotive Workers, Local 239, to stop picketing. The union cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. The dispute arose after a majority of plaintiff's employees initially signed union cards but later formed their own association, claiming coercion from the employer. Both the union and the employees' association filed proceedings with the New York State Labor Relations Board concerning representation and unfair labor practices. The court denied both the plaintiff's motion for injunction and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss, citing sharp issues of fact regarding alleged unfair labor practices and the existence of a labor dispute, recommending an immediate trial to resolve these issues.

Labor DisputeUnion RepresentationInjunction Pendente LitePicketingUnfair Labor PracticesEmployee AssociationCollective BargainingMotion to DismissNew York State Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations Board
References
1
Case No. 2025-80-2327, State File No. 860110-2025
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2026

Cisneros, Jose v. Brandenburg Industrial Service Co.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a trial court's denial of summary judgment, remanding the case for an order consistent with its opinion. The employer contended the employee's petition for benefits was untimely, arguing that the trial court erred in applying equitable estoppel based on the insurer's alleged delays. While the trial court found a disputed issue of material fact regarding the insurer's handling, the Appeals Board concluded there was no evidence of affirmative misrepresentation or concealment by the employer to warrant equitable estoppel. The Board emphasized that an employer has no affirmative duty to advise an employee on the statute of limitations. Consequently, the employer's motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the employee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that would prevent the application of the statute of limitations defense.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTimely FilingClaim DenialEmployer LiabilityInsurance Adjuster ConductMisrepresentationConcealment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byrd v. Hall

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating summary judgment motions under Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The case involved Jan Byrd's appeal from a summary judgment granted to Dr. Thomas Hall, Dr. Maxwell Huff, and Dr. David Coffey in a tortious interference with employment claim. The court aimed to establish a clearer summary judgment jurisprudence. After reviewing both state and federal precedents, the court outlined a three-part test focusing on factual disputes, materiality, and genuineness of issues for trial. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's affidavit presented sufficient specific facts to create genuine issues of material fact that required a trial.

Summary JudgmentTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Tortious Interference with EmploymentGenuine Issue of Material FactBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewDirected Verdict StandardFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Judicial PrecedentCivil Procedure
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 16,611 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