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
Apr 28, 1978

Associated Builders & Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy

This case concerns a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Gulf States, Inc., an electrical contractor, and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas Gulf Coast, Inc. against the Executive Branch of the federal government. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from proceeding with bids on the Bryan Mound Project until they could exercise their right to an administrative appeal of a revised wage determination issued by the Department of Labor. The court found that the initial wage determination was 'seriously and manifestly erroneous' and that the plaintiffs had been denied procedural due process because the government failed to adhere to its own regulations regarding administrative appeals. Citing the Accardi doctrine, the court emphasized that agencies must scrupulously observe their established rules. The court granted the preliminary injunction, affirming the plaintiffs' constitutional right to due process and ensuring their opportunity to perfect an administrative appeal before the Wage Appeals Board.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawWage DeterminationDavis-Bacon ActPreliminary InjunctionGovernment RegulationsLabor LawPublic ContractsStatutory InterpretationAgency Procedures
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1999

Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Department of Defense

Rothe Development Corporation, a San Antonio-based company, sued the United States Department of Defense after losing a contract due to an evaluation preference favoring "socially and economically disadvantaged persons" under the 1207 program (10 U.S.C. § 2323). Rothe, the low bidder, argued this preference violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. The government contended the preference met strict scrutiny standards. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately granting the government's motion and denying Rothe's. The decision affirmed that Congress has a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination in government contracting and found the 1207 program, with its rebuttable presumptions and limited duration, to be narrowly tailored, rejecting Rothe's arguments regarding burden of proof, neutral alternatives, and the impact on third parties.

Affirmative ActionEqual ProtectionStrict ScrutinyGovernment ContractsSmall Disadvantaged Businesses1207 ProgramFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRacial PreferencesSummary Judgment
References
47
Case No. 14-15-00614-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.

This case concerns an objection filed by Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. to a mediation order issued by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Berkel argues that the mediation for Appellant Maxim Crane Works, L.P.'s appeal regarding indemnity and defense costs is premature. This appeal stems from a prior trial where Berkel was found 90% responsible and Maxim 10% responsible for a construction accident, resulting in a $43 million judgment. Maxim settled its portion with the plaintiffs and is pursuing indemnity and breach of contract claims against Berkel. The core legal dispute involves the interpretation and application of Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically concerning anti-indemnity provisions and the exception for employee claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, which impacts Berkel's potential liability for Maxim's defense and indemnity costs.

Construction LawIndemnity ClaimsTexas Insurance CodeWorkers' Compensation ActAppellate ProcedureMediation ObjectionBreach of ContractNegligence LiabilityDefense CostsFinal Judgment Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morgan v. Brush Wellman, Inc.

This is a products liability action filed by four former employees of government contractors at the Y-12 and K-25 nuclear armament factories in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The plaintiffs, Troy Murphy Morgan, Corky Dean McCarter, Richard Emory Myers, Sr., and Kathlene Beatty, claim they contracted chronic beryllium disease (CBD) from beryllium exposure while working. The remaining defendants, Brush Wellman, Inc., Cabot Corporation, NGK Metal Corporation, and Ceradyne, Inc., who supplied beryllium products, moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motions, dismissing the action, based on the government contractors defense, the sophisticated manufacturer defense, lack of duty and causation, and the failure of the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claims. The court emphasized that the United States, as a sophisticated user, was fully aware of beryllium dangers and dictated safety standards and warnings.

Products LiabilityChronic Beryllium DiseaseGovernment Contractors DefenseSophisticated User DefenseCivil ConspiracySummary JudgmentBeryllium ExposureNuclear FacilitiesY-12 PlantK-25 Plant
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. 2022-01-0177
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2023

Wilder, Tom v. Monroe County Government

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a trial court's order concerning an injured paramedic, Tom E. Wilder. Wilder suffered neck and back injuries after a fall while transporting a patient, leading to a claim for temporary disability and medical benefits. The employer, Monroe County Government, denied the claim, citing pre-existing conditions and alleged willful misconduct, but the trial court found insufficient evidence for these defenses. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer's appeal was frivolous and remanding the case for an award of the employee's attorneys' fees and expenses.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingWillful Misconduct DefenseAffirmative DefenseFrivolous AppealAttorney's FeesParamedic Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 5,206 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