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. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

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

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
Jul 07, 2000

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

Plaintiff Nikolai Tevdorachvili sued Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging unauthorized wire transfers amounting to $157,000 from his checking account in August 1998, claiming forgery and lack of knowledge. He brought suit against Chase for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of New York Banking Law § 676, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligence, and gross negligence. Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court denied Chase's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for insufficiency of service, finding plaintiff to be an alien for diversity jurisdiction and exercising discretion to waive the 120-day service rule. However, the court granted Chase's motion to dismiss all causes of action except for the breach of contract claim, finding no independent basis for the other claims under New York law.

Wire Transfer FraudBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyNew York Banking LawConsequential DamagesDeclaratory Judgment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

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

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Cresencio Borquez, an employee of Brink's, Inc., was fatally shot during an attempted robbery while servicing an ATM at a JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase) branch in Dallas. His family and estate sued Chase for negligence and premises liability, alleging inadequate security. A jury found Chase liable, and the trial court awarded damages. On appeal, the court examined whether Chase owed a duty to protect Borquez from third-party criminal acts, focusing on the foreseeability of such an event based on prior crimes and other factors. The appellate court concluded that the risk of violent crime on the premises was not foreseeable to Chase, thus no duty was owed. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of Chase.

NegligencePremises LiabilityForeseeabilityCriminal ActsThird-Party LiabilityATM RobberyWrongful DeathSecurity MeasuresDuty of CareTexas Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiffs, Ms. Torres and Ms. Mateo, initiated proceedings against Chase Bank USA, N.A., alleging that the bank violated the bankruptcy discharge injunction under section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. They contended that Chase refused to update their credit reports to reflect the discharge of their debts, causing the obligations to appear as "past due" or "charged off" and thereby coercing them into repayment. Chase moved to dismiss, arguing it had no post-discharge duty to update credit reports and that its actions did not constitute an "act to collect" a debt. The court granted Chase’s motion to dismiss the defamation and FCRA claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but denied the motion to dismiss the claims alleging violation of the discharge injunction, ruling that inaccurate credit reporting, if intended to coerce payment, could constitute such a violation.

Bankruptcy DischargeCredit Reporting AccuracyDischarge Injunction ViolationMotion to DismissFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)Personal LiabilityDebt Collection PracticesCivil Contempt SanctionsDebt ReaffirmationJurisdiction
References
49
Case No. M2010-01899-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2011

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Nigel Anthony Russell initiated an adversary proceeding against Chase Bank USA, N.A., alleging violations of a bankruptcy discharge injunction and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with a claim for defamation. Russell contended that Chase intentionally failed to update his credit reports to reflect a discharged debt, thereby attempting to coerce payment. Chase filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the defamation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding it not "related to" the bankruptcy estate. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the discharge injunction violation claim, ruling that a deliberate refusal to correct credit information could be considered an act to collect a discharged debt, and further noted that punitive damages might be warranted if willful misconduct is proven.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionCredit ReportFair Credit Reporting ActDefamationMotion to DismissPunitive DamagesCivil ContemptChapter 7Debt Collection
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Mildred W. Williams, a black female, filed a federal lawsuit against Chase Manhattan Bank alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law. Williams claimed she was denied promotions from Assistant Manager to Branch Manager and Assistant Manager to Assistant Treasurer, and subjected to harassment based on her race. The court addressed Williams' motion to file a second amended complaint and Chase's motion to dismiss. Applying the precedent set in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the court granted Williams' motion to amend, allowing her claim regarding the denial of promotion to Assistant Treasurer, as it constituted a "new and distinct relation" with the employer. However, the claim for denial of promotion to Branch Manager was dismissed for not meeting this criterion. The court also maintained pendent jurisdiction over Williams' state racial harassment claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to AmendMotion to DismissCivil Rights Act of 1866New York State Human Rights LawPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionPromotion DenialAssistant Manager to Assistant TreasurerContinuing Violations Doctrine
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 619 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