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
Oct 15, 1998

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. M2010-01899-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2011

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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. 08-05-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

In this original proceeding in mandamus, Relator Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company sought to overturn a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involved Jose Gomez, a former employee, who sued Phelps Dodge for age discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was laid off following a workers' compensation claim. Phelps Dodge argued Gomez was bound by an arbitration policy in an employee handbook. The Court of Appeals referenced a factually similar prior case, In re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co., and concluded that the company's Problem Solving Procedure did not constitute an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the appellate court denied mandamus relief, upholding the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbooksAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewDenial of Relief
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company against its former employee, Jose Gomez. Gomez, a Spanish speaker, alleged he was unaware of the company's arbitration policy in the employee handbook and claimed his termination was retaliatory for filing a workers' compensation claim and discriminatory due to his age, violating Texas Labor Code Chapter 21. The Court of Appeals, citing its previous decision in Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co. v. Chavelle, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and mandamus was the appropriate method of recourse.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration PolicyInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbookTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act
References
3
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning the dismissal of a common-law negligence claim. The case involves Catherine Widera, an infant plaintiff, who alleges severe prenatal injuries from lead exposure. These injuries are attributed to lead dust brought home by her father, Matthew Widera, from his employment at Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., which subsequently exposed her pregnant mother. The dissenting judge argues for the reinstatement of the negligence cause of action, asserting that the defendant employer owed a foreseeable duty of care to the employee's unborn child. The opinion critiques the 'lack of duty' dismissal, advocating for an expansion of liability in light of evolving legal precedents, policy considerations, and scientific evidence regarding 'fouling the nest' syndrome.

Prenatal InjuryLead PoisoningEmployer NegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxinsWorkplace SafetyCommon LawJudicial ActivismDissenting Opinion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Margie Graves appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to Anchor Wire Corporation of Tennessee, her former employer. Graves was terminated in 1982 for taking confidential company production reports. She argued that an employee handbook created an implied contract of employment, thereby altering her "at-will" status. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, reiterating that under Tennessee law, an employment contract for an indefinite term remains an at-will contract, allowing termination without cause. The court also noted that Graves admitted her actions warranted discipline, and the handbook did not dispute the company's right to discharge her for such misconduct.

Employee at willWrongful terminationImplied contractEmployee handbookSummary judgmentTennessee lawMisconductProduction reportsEmployment lawAppellate review
References
3
Case No. 225 S.W.3d 601
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Alfredo Chavelle, a former mechanic at Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, filed a worker's compensation claim following a job-related injury. Subsequently, he was laid off and believed his termination was due to age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Chavelle initiated a lawsuit against Phelps Dodge, prompting the company to file a motion to compel arbitration based on its employee handbook's Problem Solving Procedure (PSP). The trial court denied this motion, leading Phelps Dodge to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court concluded that the PSP did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, ruling it was merely an internal grievance procedure that lacked the ability for parties to select independent arbitrators, as the arbitrators were exclusively company employees. Consequently, the appellate court denied the mandamus relief, affirming the trial court's decision.

Mandamus ReliefArbitration AgreementEmployment DisputeRetaliatory DischargeAge DiscriminationEmployee HandbookProblem Solving ProcedureInternal GrievanceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Southwest Airlines Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an order issued by the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority had granted a franchise to Texas TGV Consortium, which Southwest sought to challenge. The district court in Travis County dismissed Southwest's petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction and standing because no statute provided for judicial review of the Authority's decisions, and Southwest lacked an inherent right to such review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for judicial review are procedural and do not create jurisdiction or waive governmental immunity. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authorization.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityJurisdictionStandingHigh-Speed RailFranchise LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2004

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiffs Nexans Wires S.A. and Lacroix & Kress GmbH sued defendants Sark-USA, Inc. and Sarkuysan Elektrolitik Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S., alleging unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The core of the federal claim centered on allegations that defendants induced former employees of a customer, AEB, to steal plaintiffs' proprietary information from AEB's computer systems. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss the CFAA claims into a motion for summary judgment to assess if plaintiffs met the CFAA's jurisdictional "loss" threshold of $5,000. It determined that the claimed losses, consisting of executive travel expenses and lost revenue unrelated to computer service interruption, did not qualify as "loss" under the CFAA's definition. Consequently, the federal CFAA claims were dismissed, but the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Computer Fraud and Abuse ActCFAASummary JudgmentTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionJurisdictionStandingFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureData TheftProprietary Information
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 624 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