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. 04-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Cash Biz, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC Dba Cash Biz v. Hiawatha Henry, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr.

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Cash Biz, LP and its affiliates against Hiawatha Henry and other appellees. Cash Biz is challenging a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration and enforce a class action waiver. The appellees had sued Cash Biz for malicious prosecution, fraud, and statutory violations after Cash Biz filed criminal charges against them related to defaulted loan contracts. The trial court ruled that Cash Biz's actions in using the criminal justice system to collect a civil debt constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate and that the arbitration clauses were inapplicable. Cash Biz argues that the appellees' claims fall within the broad scope of their arbitration agreements and that merely filing criminal complaints does not legally constitute a 'substantial invocation of the judicial process' to waive arbitration.

ArbitrationClass Action WaiverMalicious ProsecutionFraudDebt CollectionLoan ContractsTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationInterlocutory Appeal
References
0
Case No. 03-04-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2005

Gwen Cash v. Keith Lovell Cash

This case involves an appeal by Gwen Cash against a final divorce decree. She argued that the written order incorrectly varied from a prior oral ruling concerning the division of her former husband's disability benefits, community tax obligations, and any undisclosed property. Mrs. Cash requested that the written order be reformed to align with the more favorable oral pronouncement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court had plenary power to modify its judgment and did not abuse its discretion in the property division, especially since the written decree was a result of subsequent negotiations between the parties.

Divorce DecreeProperty DivisionOral RulingWritten OrderPlenary PowerAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCommunity PropertyDisability BenefitsTax Obligations
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Reardon v. Global Cash Card, Inc.

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Case No. W2016-02288-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2017

Kevin Cash v. Turner Holdings, LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Kevin Cash filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Turner Holdings LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The initial lawsuit was dismissed 'in its entirety' by the trial court. Cash subsequently filed a second lawsuit asserting the same causes of action, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Turner Holdings, finding the claims barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal being a final adjudication on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the November 20, 2014, dismissal order was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRetaliatory DischargeFraudIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFinal Judgment
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ingalls v. SMTC Corp. (In re SMTC Manufacturing)

The case involves Ron Ingalls, Chapter 7 Trustee of SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Texas ("SMTC Texas"), suing SMTC Corporate and other affiliates for allegedly fraudulent transfers under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) and veil-piercing theories. The Trustee claims SMTC Corporate orchestrated a plan to bankrupt SMTC Texas, transferring over $80 million in cash and fixed assets to affiliates between 2002-2003, to avoid a burdensome lease obligation with Flextronics International, Inc. The transfers include intercompany cash transfers, expense reallocations, and fixed asset transfers. The court ultimately finds that transfers made after March 1, 2003, were not "assets" under TUFTA due to a fully encumbered lien. For transfers before this date, while SMTC Texas was insolvent, the Trustee failed to prove actual fraudulent intent or lack of reasonably equivalent value, as the transactions were for legitimate business purposes during an economic downturn. The court also denies the veil-piercing claims, concluding that SMTC Texas maintained sufficient independence and Flextronics assumed the risk of dealing with a subsidiary.

Fraudulent TransferTUFTAVeil PiercingAlter EgoSham to Perpetrate a FraudBankruptcyChapter 7 TrusteeCorporate FinanceIntercompany TransactionsGuaranty Obligations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc.

Plaintiffs (Debra Cash et al.) sued Conn Appliances, Inc., and its subsidiaries, alleging improper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants moved for summary judgment on overtime calculation, limitations, and damages, while plaintiffs sought to proceed as a FLSA collective action. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion regarding the calculation of overtime compensation, finding that Conn Appliances' use of the fluctuating workweek method was permissible. Consequently, the defendants' motion on limitations and damages was deemed moot. The plaintiffs' motion for a FLSA collective action was denied to the extent it relied on arguments opposing summary judgment, with a decision deferred on the inclusion of bonuses and incentives in regular rate computations.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentCollective ActionFluctuating Workweek MethodMinimum Wage ViolationsWage and Hour DivisionSalary Basis TestGood Faith DefenseLiquidated Damages
References
90
Case No. 3:14-bk-30921-SHB
Regular Panel Decision

Lansden v. Jones (In re Jones)

This adversary proceeding concerns a Complaint to Determine Nondischargeability of Debt filed by Carl Lansden, Robert Cash, and Carl Hugh Lansden against Charles M. Jones, III, under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Plaintiffs sought a judgment based on an Inventory in Satisfaction of Debt Agreement (ISDA) from 2010, which they alleged was procured by Defendant through false pretenses and misrepresentations regarding the unencumbered status and importability of firearm inventory (ARMACO and FTZ Inventories). The Court found that Defendant benefited from the ISDA and made false representations with fraudulent intent concerning the ARMACO Inventory, rendering that portion of the debt nondischargeable. However, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' reliance on Defendant's representations regarding the FTZ Inventory was not justifiable due to constructive notice of existing liens, thus that portion of the debt was discharged. Ultimately, Plaintiffs were awarded a nondischargeable judgment totaling $800,626.97, plus attorneys' fees, but their claim for punitive damages was denied.

Bankruptcy LawDebt NondischargeabilityFraudulent MisrepresentationFalse PretensesInventory Transfer AgreementFirearms ImportationSecured CreditorBreach of ContractAgency RelationshipCompensatory Damages
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cash v. Ideal Cement Co.

Frank J. Cash, an employee of Ideal Cement Company for over 27 years, filed a workmen's compensation claim for disability due to silicosis. The Chancery Court of Knox County dismissed the case, citing the one-year statute of limitations. Cash appealed, arguing that the statute should run from the date of diagnosis (June 1973), not the date of disability (March 1973), as he lacked prior knowledge of his occupational disease. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, referencing precedent like Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company v. Vines, agreed that the statute of limitations begins when the incapacity and its occupational disease cause are discoverable. The court found no evidence that Cash knew his breathing issues were due to an occupational disease before his June 1973 diagnosis. Consequently, the chancellor's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for a determination of notice and the extent of disability.

SilicosisOccupational DiseaseStatute of LimitationsWorkmen's CompensationDisability BenefitsDate of DiagnosisDate of InjuryConstructive NoticeActual KnowledgeRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Cash America International, Inc.

Janola Bennett appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her suit against Cash America International, Inc. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bennett had sued Cash America for conversion, negligence, and gross negligence after the pawnshop lost a Masonic ring she had pledged. Cash America argued that the Texas Pawnshop Act provided an exclusive administrative remedy that Bennett failed to exhaust. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the Act's administrative review is an alternative, not an exclusive or mandatory, remedy, allowing Bennett to pursue common-law claims without prior administrative action. The court emphasized that the statute does not explicitly require exhaustion of administrative remedies and strictly construed the statute to protect common-law causes of action.

Pawnshop ActSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineStatutory ConstructionCommon Law RemediesConversionNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance

Vam Check Cashing Corporation (VAM) sued Federal Insurance Company after experiencing a $120,000 loss due to an elaborate fraud scheme. Imposters tricked a cashier at VAM's Pine Check Cashing location into handing over the money. Federal denied VAM's claim, asserting the incident did not meet the policy's definition of 'Robbery,' specifically concerning the terms 'overt felonious act' and 'cognizance.' The court examined the insurance policy's ambiguous language, particularly the meanings of 'overt' and 'cognizance.' It ruled that the cashier did not need to recognize the act as criminal for coverage, only that the physical act of transferring money occurred in her presence and control. The court found Federal's interpretation would defeat the policy's purpose of protecting check cashing businesses from fraud. Consequently, VAM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Federal's motion was denied.

Insurance Policy InterpretationRobbery DefinitionSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityFraud SchemeCheck Cashing BusinessOn Premises ClauseOvert Felonious ActCognizance RequirementNew York Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 670 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