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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. M2004-00647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2005

Yvonne N. Robertson v. Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure

The Tennessee Board of Social Worker Certification and Licensure appealed a Chancery Court decision that had set aside the Board's two-year license revocation of Yvonne N. Robertson. Robertson, a licensed clinical social worker, had her license revoked for engaging in a prohibited 'dual relationship' with a client. The Chancery Court ruled that the Board's sanctions were an abuse of discretion and arbitrary, partly due to the Board's consideration of Robertson's 1982 felony forgery conviction. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the Board was authorized to review its prior records and that the imposed sanction was both warranted in law and justified in fact. Consequently, the Board's original order of revocation was reinstated.

Social Worker CertificationLicense RevocationDual RelationshipUnethical ConductAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandard of ReviewProfessional EthicsAppellate Court DecisionTennessee Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs, H-2B temporary foreign workers, filed a class action against Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (SFSI) and its officials, alleging underpayment and exploitation under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court considered Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. After a rigorous analysis, the Court found that the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, the Court concluded that certification was appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and incidental monetary damages, and Rule 23(b)(3) for non-incidental monetary damages. The Court also determined that a six-year statute of limitations applied to the AWPA claims, ultimately granting the Plaintiffs' motion.

H-2B visa programMigrant workersAgricultural workersWage violationsFLSA claimsAWPA claimsClass actionEmployment lawLabor disputesUndercapitalized workers
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duchene v. Michael L. Cetta, Inc.

Plaintiffs, current and former waiters at Sparks Steak House, initiated litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, alleging the unlawful diversion of their tips. Following a previous order for the FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action, the plaintiffs moved for class action certification for all waiters employed by Sparks from June 14, 2000, onwards. The defendant opposed this, challenging supplemental jurisdiction and class certification requirements. However, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and found that the class met all necessary criteria, including numerosity and superiority. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawTip DiversionWage and Hour ClaimsCollective ActionSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementSuperiority Requirement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lehocky v. Tidel Technologies, Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Robert Scott Stauffer, Robert Scott Stauffer IRA Trust, and the Jerry Keeler Revocable Trust filed a motion for class certification against Tidel Technologies, Inc. and several individual defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs claim that Tidel and its directors artificially inflated stock prices through misrepresentations regarding the company's financial health, its relationship with its major customer CCC, and by concealing the loss of CCC as its primary supplier. The lawsuit asserts violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, encompassing claims of misrepresentation and insider trading. The Court conducted a class certification hearing and evaluated the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority. After considering expert testimony on market efficiency and arguments concerning the representatives' typicality and adequacy, the Court determined that the motion for class certification should be granted.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934Insider TradingMarket EfficiencyFraud on the MarketMisrepresentationMaterial OmissionsClass Certification
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation

This memorandum addresses two motions for class certification in a pharmaceutical antitrust case concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin. Plaintiffs, comprised of Indirect Purchasers and End Payors, alleged that defendants King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. colluded to delay the entry of a generic drug. The Court denied both class certification motions, finding the End Payors' proposed class not ascertainable due to the need for individualized contractual inquiries. For Indirect Purchasers, certification was denied primarily for failure to establish a proper choice-of-law for a nationwide class and inadequate support for state-specific subclasses. Additionally, End Payors' related motions for partial summary judgment and to strike expert testimony were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustClass ActionPharmaceuticalsSkelaxinMetaxaloneGeneric DrugClass CertificationIndirect PurchasersEnd PayorsChoice of Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Texas Ass'n of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging a district court's order granting class certification to the Texas Association of School Boards Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund) and several school districts. The Fund, representing past and present members, sued Employers Casualty Company and other servicing agents (defendants) for alleged misrepresentation and breach-of-contract regarding workers' compensation claims handling and medical cost containment services. The defendants raised points of error concerning standing, the certification hearing, and compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42 prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, representativeness) and maintenance criteria. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the Fund had standing, the hearing was properly conducted, and the class met the Rule 42 requirements for certification as a (b)(4) class.

Class ActionWorkers' CompensationSelf-Insurance FundInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil ProcedureRule 42StandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicality
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 664 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