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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. United Seafood Workers Smoked Fish & Cannery Union, Local 359

The case involves a petition by Sidney Danielson, Regional Director of the NLRB, seeking a preliminary injunction against United Seafood Workers Smoked Fish & Cannery Union, Local 359, AFL-CIO. The union was charged with unfair labor practices, specifically secondary boycotts, targeting several fish businesses (charging parties) at the New York Fulton Fish Market to coerce them into recognizing Local 359 as their employees' bargaining agent. An evidentiary hearing revealed a concerted effort by union members, often directed by union officials like Carmine Romano and Anthony O’Connor, to obstruct the charging parties' ability to buy and deliver fish, leading to significant business disruption. The court found reasonable cause to believe the union had violated the National Labor Relations Act, holding Local 359 responsible under theories of mass action and agency for its members' and officials' conduct. Concluding that the charging parties faced irreparable harm, the court granted the preliminary injunction to prevent further unlawful activities, while also finding union officials in civil contempt but delaying the imposition of penalties.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Preliminary InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion LiabilityMass Action TheoryCivil ContemptFulton Fish Market
References
24
Case No. CA 13-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2014

PULVER, MICHELLE v. CITY OF FULTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

Plaintiff Michelle Pulver commenced a personal injury action against the City of Fulton Department of Public Works and the City of Fulton after she tripped in a hole covered by plywood near a sidewalk. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing lack of prior written notice. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability, alleging the City's affirmative negligence. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding no prior written notice but potential factual issues regarding affirmative negligence. The Appellate Division modified the order by granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court held that the prior written notice requirement applied and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the City engaged in affirmative acts of negligence by creating the defective condition or placing the plywood.

Personal InjuryMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPlywood CoverHole HazardOswego County
References
9
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

Donald Fulton sustained a back injury and was initially assessed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a seven percent impairment rating. His condition later deteriorated, leading his doctors to request an amendment to his MMI date and impairment rating. The Workers’ Compensation Commission deemed the initial rating final due to Fulton's failure to dispute it within 90 days, as per Commission Rule 130.5(e). Fulton challenged this rule's validity, arguing it contravenes the Workers’ Compensation Act by prematurely finalizing MMI certification. The district court affirmed the Commission’s decision. This appellate court ruled the 90-day Rule invalid for impermissibly shortening the statutory 104-week period for a worker to achieve MMI, thereby reversing the lower court's judgment and granting summary judgment to Fulton.

Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Impairment Rating90-day Rule InvalidityStatutory AuthorityAdministrative Rule ChallengeJudicial Review of Agency DecisionSummary Judgment GrantTexas Labor Code § 401.011(30)Claimant RightsMedical Condition Deterioration
References
19
Case No. 11-06-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2006

Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board v. Plains Marketing, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing, L.P. appealing the tax assessment on its crude oil inventory accounts. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting that Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their challenge. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Plains had sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies because the exemption claim was thoroughly discussed and determined by the Appraisal Review Board, despite initial protest notice deficiencies. The core issue revolved around whether oil stored in tank farms for future delivery constituted taxable inventory or was exempt under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Property TaxAd ValoremAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate CommerceOil InventoryAppraisal Review BoardTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 03-00-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Donald Fulton v. Association Indemnity Corporation

Donald Fulton, an injured worker, disputed an impairment rating and Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) certification after his condition deteriorated six months post-initial assessment. The Workers' Compensation Commission and district court affirmed the initial rating, citing Commission Rule 130.5(e) (the 90-day Rule), which states that an impairment rating is final if not disputed within 90 days. Fulton challenged the rule's validity, arguing it contravenes the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court held that the 90-day Rule is invalid because it impermissibly shortens the statutory 104-week period for a claimant to achieve MMI, thereby imposing a restriction in excess of the Act. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's order and granted summary judgment in favor of Fulton.

Workers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityRule ValidityTexas Court of AppealsSummary Judgment
References
21
Case No. 13-23-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

John William Johnson v. Town of Fulton

Appellant John William Johnson challenged a permanent injunction issued in favor of Appellee Town of Fulton, arguing errors in subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. Fulton had sought injunctive relief against Johnson for obstructing Casterline Drive, a public right-of-way, and also requested declarations concerning nuisance and abandonment of an easement. Johnson contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the easement boundaries due to conflicting surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment, finding no material fact issue concerning the easement. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Fulton, concluding that the declaratory relief obtained was duplicative of the injunctive relief and appeared to be solely a vehicle for recovering fees.

Road obstructionPublic right-of-wayPermanent injunctionSummary judgmentSubject matter jurisdictionAttorney's feesDeclaratory judgmentEasement disputeProperty boundariesTexas Government Code
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance

Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., filed an action against several insurance companies regarding defense and indemnification for thousands of asbestos claims. The court addressed multiple pending motions for summary judgment, focusing on the proper allocation of indemnity costs among the liable parties, Fulton's obligation for uninsured years, the applicability of equitable estoppel against insurers, and Travelers' specific obligations concerning notice of claims and disclaimers. The court ruled that a pro rata allocation of indemnity costs is appropriate, with Fulton liable for periods it was uninsured. Equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable to bar insurers from seeking contribution, and Travelers was found to have received proper notice for many claims and is barred from disclaiming coverage due to untimely disclaimers. This order, along with a previous one, sets the 'ground rules' for resolving past, pending, and future asbestos claims.

Asbestos LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnity AllocationSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelNotice ProvisionsDisclaimer of CoveragePro Rata AllocationInjury-in-factComprehensive General Liability Policy
References
23
Case No. NO. 01-16-00724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

LMMM Houston 41, Ltd., LMMM Houston 41, Ltd, Dba La Michoacana Meat Market 41 v. Jesus Santibanez

This appeal arises from a premises liability suit where Jesus Santibanez slipped and fell on grease at La Michoacana Meat Market. A jury found La Michoacana Meat Market negligent, awarding Santibanez damages, including $120,000 for future medical expenses. La Michoacana Meat Market appealed, challenging jury instructions and the sufficiency of evidence, while Santibanez cross-appealed the reduction of his future medical expenses via JNOV. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions and upholding the JNOV due to insufficient evidence to support the jury's original $120,000 award for future medical expenses.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallPersonal InjuryJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyFuture Medical ExpensesJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictInviteeOrdinary CareConcealed Danger
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 858 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