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

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. Civil action No. 2438
Regular Panel Decision

Kephart v. Wilson

This case involves a review of a determination by a Review Committee under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Plaintiffs, including farmers whose cotton allotments in Custer County, Oklahoma, were taken by eminent domain, and Fred Chandler, Sr., Fred Chandler, Jr., and the Chandler Company, sought to transfer these allotments to tracts in Culberson County, Texas. The Review Committee found that these transactions were not bona fide reestablishments of farming operations but rather schemes to sell allotments for the Chandlers' benefit, leading to the cancellation of the allotments. The District Court affirmed the Review Committee's findings, supported by substantial evidence of fraud. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and Declaratory Judgments Act, and dissolved a preliminary injunction, concluding that any administrative irregularities at the county level were cured by the de novo hearing before the Review Committee.

Agricultural Adjustment ActCotton Allotment TransfersEminent DomainAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewFraudulent TransactionsLeaseback AgreementsASCS RegulationsFederal Farm ProgramsDue Process
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2009

Zuckerberg v. Port Authority

The injured plaintiff, a police lieutenant for the Port Authority, sustained injuries after tripping over a door saddle at John F. Kennedy International Airport. After receiving workers' compensation, he and his wife filed a lawsuit against the Port Authority under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The Port Authority moved for summary judgment, arguing FELA was inapplicable and workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, concluding that FELA did not apply because the alleged negligence was not connected to the Port Authority's interstate railway operations. This appellate court affirmed the decision, emphasizing that for FELA to apply, the defendant's negligent act must be committed while it is engaging in interstate commerce related to its railway operations, which was not the case here as the accident occurred in an airport office.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentInterstate CommerceRailroad LiabilityPolice EmploymentAirport AccidentPort AuthorityExclusive RemedyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 8,278 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