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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. Shelby Law No. 68714-2; C.A. No. 02A01-9707-CV-00162
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1998

James Carroll v. Carolyn Whitney

This medical malpractice case concerns the wrongful death of a minor, Jessieca Renee Carroll, brought by her parents, James and Forestine Carroll, against Carolyn Whitney, M.D., Grover W. Barnes, M.D., P.C., and Lebonheur Children’s Medical Center, Inc. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment on a jury verdict, challenging the apportionment of comparative fault to non-party resident physicians who were immune from tort suit under state law. The appellate court examined the applicability of Ridings v. Ralph M. Parson’s Co. and Snyder v. Ltg Lufttechnische GmbH, distinguishing between proximate cause and cause in fact in the context of immune parties. The court ultimately concluded that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to assess proximate or legal fault to immune non-parties. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

medical malpracticewrongful deathcomparative faultsovereign immunitystate employeesjury instructionsproximate causecause in factappellate reviewTennessee law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottalico v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

An employee of International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. (ITOC) sued South African Marine Corp., Ltd. and Todd Shipyards Corp. for personal injuries sustained during stevedoring operations. Todd Shipyards Corp., one of the defendants, filed a third-party complaint against ITOC, seeking contribution or indemnification for alleged negligence. ITOC moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, asserting immunity under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), arguing that as a compensation-paying employer, it is shielded from such claims. The court reviewed the LHWCA's provisions, particularly the 1972 amendments to section 905(b) which limits vessel owners' rights to indemnity from employers, and precedent regarding non-vessel third parties. Ultimately, the court determined that the LHWCA immunizes compensation-paying employers from third-party claims by non-vessels, and therefore granted ITOC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

LHWCAThird-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityIndemnificationContributionFederal Maritime LawNon-Vessel LiabilityStevedoringWorkers' CompensationCPLR 3211
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarrant County Democratic Party v. Steen

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees for the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP) and the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) from the Texas Secretary of State. The parties incurred fees defending an election contest lawsuit (Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis's eligibility for the State Senate. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity for such a suit and that the Brimer suit fees were 'in connection with' the primary election, given the broad interpretation of the phrase and the nature of the eligibility challenge. The court reversed the trial court's judgment denying reimbursement, rendered judgment for TCDP and TDP to receive their stipulated attorney's fees, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including the denial of attorney's fees for the underlying lawsuit due to the Secretary of State's discretionary authority.

Election LawAttorney FeesReimbursementSovereign Immunity WaiverElection ContestCandidate EligibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentUltra Vires Doctrine
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockhart v. Heede International, Inc.

This memorandum addresses a motion to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heede International, Inc. against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The original lawsuits involved personal injury or wrongful death claims by TVA employees or their survivors, arising from a tower crane collapse. Heede, an original defendant, sought contribution or indemnity from TVA. The court found that the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs against TVA and bars third-party actions for contribution or indemnity against TVA, absent a contract of indemnity. The court rejected Heede’s arguments that TVA impliedly agreed to indemnify Heede or waived its immunity, noting the limited application of the Ryan Stevedoring doctrine to non-admiralty cases. Consequently, the court granted TVA's motion, dismissing Heede's third-party complaint against TVA.

Federal Employee Compensation ActThird-party complaintIndemnityContributionExclusive remedyWorkers' compensationAdmiralty lawStrict liabilityMotion to dismissCrane accident
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carroll v. Whitney

James and Forestine Carroll brought a medical malpractice suit after their infant daughter, Jessica, died of sepsis and pneumonia. The original defendants included LeBonheur Children’s Medical Center, Dr. Carolyn Whitney, and Dr. Grover W. Barnes. Resident physicians, Dr. Reggie Lyell and Dr. Azra Sehic, were initially dismissed due to state employee immunity. The trial court allowed the jury to apportion fault to these immune non-parties, with Dr. Lyell receiving 70% and Dr. Sehic 30%, while the named defendants received 0%. The Court of Appeals reversed this, but the Supreme Court, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that in negligence actions, a jury may generally apportion fault to immune non-parties to promote fairness by aligning fault with liability, thereby preventing the implicit revival of joint and several liability, distinguishing this from workers' compensation cases.

Medical MalpracticeComparative FaultImmune Non-PartiesJury VerdictSepsis and PneumoniaResident Physicians NegligenceState ImmunityJoint and Several Liability AbolitionWorkers' Compensation ExceptionAffirmative Defense
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. 02A01-9804-CV-00117
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1998

Jean Dotson v. Amanda Blake

Jean Carolyn Dotson was injured in an automobile accident involving Amanda Blake, Dan Blake, and the Estate of Elvis C. Maddox, Sr. Martin Manor Associates (MMA) was later added as a defendant, being the party that designed and built the roadway. Dotson alleged the Martin Manor apartment complex access road was improperly located, creating a hazard. MMA asserted that Hnedek, Bobo, Gooch and Associates (Architect) and S. Webster Haining & Company (Contractor) were responsible. However, claims against the Architect and Contractor were barred by a statute of repose. The trial court denied MMA's motion to attribute fault to these non-parties and refused certain jury instructions. The jury found 51% fault to MMA and 49% to the City of Martin, assigning zero fault to the drivers involved in the collision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that fault may not be attributed to non-parties immune from suit pursuant to a statute of repose.

Automobile accidentComparative negligenceStatute of reposeNon-party fault attributionJury instructionsApportionment of faultArchitectural design liabilityConstruction liabilityRoadway design defectDuty of landowner
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 9,594 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