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

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. 10-23-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Vincin Campise v. Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, & Roberto Rico

Vincin Campise appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, and Roberto Rico. Campise, acting pro se, had initially filed a petition alleging identity theft, fraud, credit-reporting violations, deceptive trade practices, and civil conspiracy related to his bank accounts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Campise failed to present sufficient summary-judgment evidence for any of his claims. Furthermore, the court noted that Campise's identity theft and credit-reporting claims, as pleaded, did not constitute viable civil causes of action under Texas law.

Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil ProcedureNo-Evidence MotionFraud ClaimIdentity Theft ClaimDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil Conspiracy
References
36
Case No. 13483/93, 5550/94
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ryan

This case addresses whether a court has the inherent power to vacate an illegal sentence more than one year after its imposition, particularly when the sentence was procured through the defendant's fraud and misrepresentation of his identity and criminal history. The defendant, initially identified as Robert Ryan, pleaded guilty to felonies in 1994 and was sentenced as a first-time offender. It was subsequently discovered in 1995 that he was a persistent violent felony offender under the name Keith Kittredge with numerous prior convictions. The court examined precedents regarding judicial power to correct errors after statutory time limits. Ultimately, the court concluded that it possesses the inherent authority to vacate the illegally imposed sentences due to the defendant's active fraud and deceit, distinguishing this situation from cases involving passive acceptance of illegal plea bargains. The matter was set for a hearing to determine new sentencing options or allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas.

fraudmisrepresentationillegal sentenceinherent powervacate judgmentpersistent violent felony offenderpredicate felonyCPL 440.40double jeopardyplea bargain
References
11
Case No. 14-03-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2006

W & F Transportation, Inc., E.H. Wilhelm, Sr., and Margaret Wilhelm v. Cindy and Ricky Wilhelm

This case concerns an appeal by W&F Transportation, Inc., E.H. Wilhelm, Sr., and Margaret Wilhelm (Appellants) against Cindy and Ricky Wilhelm (Appellees) following a jury verdict awarding damages for breach of contract, fraud, and identity theft. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals addressed whether Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c), concerning partial reporter's records, applied to the omission of unrecorded, non-evidentiary closing arguments made by agreement of the parties. Citing Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, the court held that the rule and its common law presumption of support for the judgment do not apply to such agreed non-evidentiary omissions. The court affirmed the judgment against W&F Transportation, Inc. However, it reversed and rendered judgment in favor of E.H. Wilhelm, Sr. and Margaret Wilhelm, finding that the jury charge did not establish their individual liability, and a 1992 assumed name certificate did not create liability for transactions after the company's 1996 incorporation. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's fraud finding and upheld the punitive damages award against W&F Transportation, Inc.

Appellate ProcedurePartial Reporter's RecordNonevidentiary OmissionsTexas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c)Jury Verdict ReviewCorporate LiabilityIndividual LiabilityAssumed Name CertificateFraudulent IntentBreach of Contract
References
45
Case No. Docket Entries No. 140, 141
Regular Panel Decision

In re Plains All Am. Pipeline, L.P. Sec. Litig.

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses the defendants' second motion to dismiss a securities-fraud amended complaint. The case involves a highly publicized oil spill on the California coast by Plains All American Pipeline, an oil and gas pipeline owner and operator. Plaintiffs, a putative class of stockholders, allege that Plains and its officers made misrepresentations about the spill's extent and the company's environmental compliance programs, causing a drop in stock price. The court previously dismissed claims without prejudice, allowing for amendment. Now, evaluating the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, the court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court finds that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege specific, actionable misrepresentations and, more critically, failed to establish a strong inference of scienter for the individual defendants for any remaining potentially actionable statements. Consequently, all claims are dismissed with prejudice, deeming further amendment futile.

Securities FraudOil SpillPipeline IntegrityEnvironmental ComplianceClass ActionMotions to DismissScienterRule 9(b)PSLRAStock Price
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. 04-10-00041-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

Dynegy, Inc. v. Terry W. Yates, Individually, and Terry W. Yates, P.C.

Dynegy, Inc. appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Terry W. Yates for fraud stemming from an high-profile oral contract for attorney's fees. Dynegy argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the fraud finding and that the oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. The appellate court held that the statute of frauds did not apply, as Dynegy's promise to pay was a primary obligation for services rendered. However, the court reversed the trial court's fraud finding due to a lack of evidence that Dynegy's corporate agent had the intent not to perform at the time the oral contract was made. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in favor of Yates on his alternative breach of contract claim, awarding actual damages and attorney's fees.

FraudBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewStatute of FraudsAttorney's FeesCorporate LiabilityCorporate IndemnificationLegal EthicsEvidence SufficiencyOral Contract
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,554 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