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. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Nikko Asset Management Co. v. UBS AG, UBS Warburg (Japan), Ltd.

Plaintiffs, Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd., MMF, and HMMF (collectively 'Nikko'), sued defendants, UBS AG and its subsidiaries ('UBS'), alleging violations of federal securities laws and tort claims. Nikko accused UBS of fraudulently selling credit-linked notes (CLNs) in Japan without disclosing critical information about Enron Corporation's financial instability, knowledge UBS allegedly gained through its U.S. dealings with Enron. The core issue was whether U.S. federal securities laws applied to these predominantly foreign transactions. The court granted UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged U.S. conduct was merely preparatory and did not directly cause the plaintiffs' losses from the Japanese transactions, thus failing both the 'effects test' and the 'conduct test'.

Securities FraudCredit-Linked NotesSubject Matter JurisdictionForeign TransactionsEnron ScandalConduct TestEffects TestMotion to DismissInvestment BankingInternational Law
References
49
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. No. 08-13-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2015

Bank of New York F/K/A the Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWABS Inc. Asset Back Certificates, Series 2005-9 v. Chesapeake 34771 Land Trust

The Trust (Appellee) sued the Bank (Appellant), a financial institution, to quiet title to a house after a foreclosure sale. The Trust alleged title irregularities and sought to set aside the Bank's deed, leading to a no-answer default judgment against the Bank. On appeal, the Bank argued improper service of process. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that service did not strictly comply with Section 17.028 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which mandates specific procedures for serving financial institutions. The court clarified that the term 'may' in the statute indicates a mandatory procedure to protect financial institutions from default judgments. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessFinancial InstitutionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRestricted AppealQuiet TitleForeclosureStatutory InterpretationSecretary of StateRegistered Agent
References
13
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. 11-12-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Linda Lewis v. Ally Financial Inc. F/K/A GMAC, Inc. D/B/A GMAC

Linda Lewis appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ally Financial Inc. Ally Financial had sued Lewis for breach of contract and foreclosure of security interest after she defaulted on a car loan and the vehicle was sold for less than the amount owed. Lewis raised several issues on appeal, including alleged judicial bias (recusal motions), violations of her constitutional rights (Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments), and improper grant of summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no procedural or substantive errors. The court concluded that Lewis failed to preserve some issues and that her arguments lacked merit, thus upholding the lower court's ruling.

Appeals CourtSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractForeclosureRecusal MotionConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
44
Case No. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Case No. 08-04-00018-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2005

Financial Insurance Co. v. William Ragsdale

This appeal concerns a jury verdict in a workers’ compensation case regarding William Ragsdale's impairment rating. William Ragsdale, an employee of MR Drilling or MR Oil, suffered a fall in 2001 and filed a workers' compensation claim. While his treating physician assigned a 0% impairment rating, the designated doctor, Dr. Steven Ellsworth, initially indicated 10% on a form but stated a 'whole person impairment' of 67% in his report. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel subsequently determined the impairment rating to be 67%. Financial Insurance Company, the employer’s carrier, appealed the trial court's judgment affirming this 67% rating and the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMedical EvidenceDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeJudicial Review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,109 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