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

Havens v. Dallas Power & Light Co.

Henry Havens, while working as a welder on the roof of the new Johnson Bros. Chevrolet warehouse, suffered severe electrical shock and personal injuries when a steel rod he was handling contacted a high voltage line owned and maintained by Dallas Power & Light Company. National Automobile Casualty Insurance Company intervened to recoup $14,440.95 in compensation benefits paid to Havens. The trial court granted Dallas Power & Light Company's motion for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Havens appealed, asserting that questions of fact existed regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition, the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the defendant was not required to anticipate dangerous consequences from the high voltage lines, which complied with safety codes, and had no notice of the specific sign erection project that created the hazardous situation.

Summary JudgmentElectrical AccidentHigh VoltagePersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstructive NoticeSafety Code ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01760
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

Chua v. Trim-Line Hitech Constr. Corp.

Wilfred Chua and other plaintiffs initiated a class action against Trim-Line Hitech Construction Corp. and J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc., among others, seeking recovery of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for construction work performed on publicly-financed projects. The plaintiffs successfully moved for class certification in the Supreme Court, New York County. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902. The court concluded that a class action was the superior method for resolving the wage dispute, given the potentially insignificant individual damages and high costs of individual litigation.

Class ActionClass CertificationPrevailing WageSupplemental BenefitsLabor LawConstruction WorkWage DisputeAppellate ReviewNumerosityCommonality
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
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. 2022-03-0580
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

Rash, Clayton v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC

Clayton Rash, a truck driver for Fine Line Transportation, suffered a broken left wrist at work. While undergoing physical therapy for his wrist, he sustained a left shoulder injury, which he attributed to exercises performed during therapy. Fine Line Transportation denied benefits for the shoulder injury, arguing against causation. The Court found Mr. Rash's testimony credible and, relying on the opinion of a panel-selected physician, Dr. Kenneth Grinspun, determined that the shoulder injury was a direct and natural consequence of his compensable wrist injury. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Rash medical treatment for his left shoulder, including recommended surgery, and ordered Fine Line Transportation to pay temporary partial disability benefits.

Shoulder InjuryWrist FracturePhysical Therapy InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationExpedited HearingEmployer's Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Shell Oil Co.

H.T. Edwards, an employee of an independent contractor, sued Shell Oil Company and K & S Electric Company for severe injuries sustained on June 12, 1974, when he contacted an electrically charged guy line. The guy line, built by K & S on Shell's property, became energized after Edwards' ditching machine caused its anchor to loosen, bringing it into contact with a high voltage line. The trial court instructed verdicts for both defendants. Edwards appealed, arguing that the guy line was uninsulated or inadequately insulated, presenting expert testimony to support this claim, while defendants contended proper insulation was for lightning, not human protection. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence of negligence and proximate cause against both defendants, and also set aside a prior severance order.

Electrical InjuryGuy LineNegligenceProximate CauseIndependent ContractorPremise LiabilityUninsulated WiresHigh VoltageInstructed VerdictAppeal
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,065 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