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

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.

Justice Willett concurs with the Court's judgment, agreeing that the Edwards Aquifer Authority became effective as per the Bar-shop opinion date. However, he emphasizes the unresolved fundamental legal question concerning when an appellate-court judgment becomes final and takes effect, which he believes warrants the Court's rulemaking attention. He argues that the mandate, rather than the opinion's issuance, should generally be considered the definitive date for a judgment's finality and enforceability, citing various rules and statutes that link finality to the mandate's issuance. Willett contrasts his view with arguments that judgments are effective upon issuance, highlighting the period before a mandate issues during which the court can still modify its decision. He concludes by reiterating his agreement with the Court's outcome in the present case but advocates for clear guidelines on judgment finality through the rulemaking process.

Appellate ProcedureJudgment FinalityMandateConcurring OpinionEdwards Aquifer Authority ActSupersedeasDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionTexas Supreme CourtLegal Practice
References
18
Case No. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. 2021-07-0545
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2024

Gray, Mark v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

The employee, Mark Gray, reported multiple injuries after falling from a ladder at work, and his claim was deemed compensable. Following a settlement, he sought increased benefits after being terminated for refusing a mandated COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently working as an independent contractor at a higher hourly rate. The trial court denied his claim, concluding his higher post-injury wages and termination due to willful misconduct disqualified him. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding no error in comparing hourly rates or in the interpretation of 'returned to work' for independent contractors, and certified the decision as final.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsIncreased Benefits ClaimCOVID-19 Vaccine RefusalEmployment TerminationIndependent Contractor EmploymentHourly Rate ComparisonPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate Board DecisionStatutory InterpretationWillful Misconduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Savings of America

Plaintiff Sandra R. Hall sued Defendant Savings of America for unlawful termination in retaliation for a worker's compensation claim and disability discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Hall, determining the defendant unlawfully terminated her and discriminated based on disability, causing damages and justifying punitive damages. The Court denied the defendant's motion for judgment, new trial, and/or remittitur, upholding the jury's verdict and finding sufficient evidence. The Court granted in part the plaintiff's application for attorney's fees, awarding a total of $58,477.89 after adjustments and a multiplier for lead counsel's exceptional performance. Final judgment was rendered, ordering the defendant to pay Hall over $2.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages, along with pre-judgment interest and awarded attorney's fees and costs.

Worker's Compensation RetaliationDisability DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesJury VerdictMotion for New TrialRemittiturReasonable AccommodationUndue Hardship Defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonsalves v. Roberts

This case originated from a petition to modify a final divorce decree, seeking an increase in child support. The primary legal question addressed was whether permanent partial disability benefits from workers' compensation should be considered as income for calculating child support obligations. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that only temporary total disability payments, received in lieu of wages, should be included, excluding permanent disability settlements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that under T.C.A. § 50-6-223, courts possess the discretion to assign portions of periodic or lump sum workers' compensation awards to fulfill both present and prospective child support obligations, as well as to satisfy judgments for arrearages. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Child SupportWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityIncome for Child SupportDivorce ModificationArrearagesStatutory InterpretationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1978

Lynn v. Southwestern Electric Power Co.

This Memorandum Opinion supports a final judgment in a personal injury case involving electrical burns suffered by plaintiffs Larry Lynn and John R. Tharpe while working with a wire line truck. The plaintiffs sued Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) for negligence after settling a strict liability claim against Harold Lee Engineering Company. A jury found both SWEPCO and the plaintiffs negligent, assigning 51% fault to SWEPCO and 49% to each plaintiff. The core issue addressed by the court was how to apply the prior settlement amount against the damages awarded, particularly concerning Texas's comparative negligence statute. The court affirmed the original judgment, denying SWEPCO's motion to amend and reducing the plaintiffs' damages solely by their comparative negligence percentage, ensuring they did not receive a double recovery or SWEPCO a double reduction.

Comparative NegligenceStrict LiabilityProducts LiabilityJoint Tort-feasorsSettlement CreditElectrical BurnsPersonal InjuryJury VerdictTexas LawMary Carter Agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re South Shore Tobacco & Candy Co.

The coassignees moved for an order settling their final account, fixing their commissions, and granting allowances to their attorneys and accountants. Arthur Kerner, Esq., representing himself and unsecured creditors, opposed the requested amounts, deeming them excessive and questioning the administration of the estate. The court had previously denied the motion and requested additional documentation and explanations. After reviewing new submissions and the case file, the court largely sided with the objector, significantly reducing the requested commissions and fees for the coassignees, their attorneys, and accountants based on established guidelines for economy and efficiency in estate administration.

Assignment for Benefit of CreditorsCommissionsAttorneys' FeesAccountants' FeesEstate AdministrationDebtor and Creditor LawJudicial ReviewCompensation GuidelinesFiduciary DutiesObjections to Fees
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,448 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