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
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. 02-11-00480-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2012

in the Interest of A.L.W. and M.M.P., the Children

This memorandum opinion from the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirms a trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of D.W.P. (Father) and E.W. (Mother) to their children, A.L.W. and M.M.P., and granting managing conservatorship of M.M.P. to A.M. and B.M. (Maroneys). The parents appealed the termination, citing insufficient evidence, while the children's Grandmother, D.P., appealed the Maroneys' intervention and other procedural issues. The case details the parents' extensive history of drug abuse, criminal activities, domestic disputes, and non-compliance with court-ordered service plans. Psychological evaluations revealed significant personality disorders and a high risk of relapse, leading the court to conclude that termination was in the children's best interest due to the parents' inability to provide a stable and safe environment.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyDrug AbuseSubstance AddictionCriminal HistoryFamily LawAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-compliance
References
51
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. M2010-01899-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2011

Willie J. High v. Sumner County, Tennessee

Willie J. High, an employee of Sumner County, was injured on the job and sought disability benefits. Initially, his disability was treated as permanent partial, leading to a lower settlement offer from Sumner County, which was upheld by the administrative review board. High appealed to the chancery court, which determined the review board should have considered total disability and remanded the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the review board acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering Mr. High's permanent total disability, and remanded the matter back to the Review Board.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityAdministrative LawArbitrary and CapriciousWrit of CertiorariMedical ImpairmentSumner County PlanRemandAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
9
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.K.

Mustofa K Khandokar appealed the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, E.A.K., after a jury found grounds for termination and that it was in the child's best interest. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay documents, including child outcry statements, without proper foundation or reliability. These evidentiary errors were deemed harmful, likely leading to an improper judgment. Despite finding legally sufficient evidence on one ground for termination and the child's best interest based on properly admitted evidence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Outcry StatementsEvidentiary ErrorHarmless Error AnalysisLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of Child
References
0
Case No. 07-07-0126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

in the Interest of M.D., a Child

Natasha and Timothy appealed the termination of their parental rights to their son, M.D. Their appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the child's best interest, and argued due process violations concerning the requirement to file a statement of points within fifteen days. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the parents' arguments on sufficiency of evidence, best interest, and public policy were not preserved due to untimely filing of the statement of points. Additionally, the court rejected their claims that the fifteen-day filing requirement for a statement of points violated their federal and state due process rights.

Parental RightsDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceChild WelfareTexas Family LawStatement of PointsTimelinessAffirmationParental Rights Termination
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 5,150 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