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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Financial Insurance Co. of America

Yolanda and Francisco Flores, Jr. initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. J. Scott Smith, alleging negligence during spinal surgery and submitting an expert report. Subsequently, Financial Insurance Company of America and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association intervened, asserting a workers' compensation subrogation claim after paying benefits to Mr. Flores. Dr. Smith moved to dismiss the intervenors' claims, arguing their failure to file an independent expert report. The intervenors contended they could rely on the Floreses' previously filed report. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. This appellate court affirmed, ruling that a workers' compensation carrier asserting a subrogation claim can indeed rely on the injured employee's expert report, as both are considered a single claimant under the relevant statute, and the subrogation claim is derivative.

Medical MalpracticeHealth Care LiabilityExpert Report RequirementsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationClaimant DefinitionDerivative ClaimTexas Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,457 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