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

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. M2000-01850-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2003

Daniel Sherwood v. Microsoft

This appeal concerns a lawsuit brought by purchasers of Microsoft software against Microsoft, alleging violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act (TTPA) and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) due to inflated software prices resulting from alleged antitrust violations. The trial court denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss indirect purchasers' TTPA claims but dismissed direct purchasers' claims and did not dismiss TCPA claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that indirect purchasers may bring an action for damages under the TTPA, and the TTPA applies to activities with substantial effects on commerce within the state. However, the court concluded that the TCPA does not apply to antitrust causes of action or anticompetitive conduct, leading to the dismissal of the TCPA claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Antitrust LawConsumer ProtectionTrade PracticesIndirect Purchaser StandingMonopolySoftware IndustryInterstate CommerceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court DecisionClass Action
References
98
Case No. 08 Civ. 7837(PAC)
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York

This case involves a dispute between New York City taxicab fleet owners and the City’s Taxicab & Limousine Commission (TLC) over new regulations. The regulations incentivize the purchase of hybrid taxicabs by increasing lease rates for hybrids and substantially reducing rates for non-hybrid vehicles. Plaintiffs challenged these new rules, arguing they create a de facto mandate to purchase hybrid vehicles, which is preempted by federal law (Energy Policy and Conservation Act - EPCA and Clean Air Act - CAA). The Court found that the new Lease Cap Rules indeed constitute an effective mandate to switch to hybrid vehicles, making them "related to" fuel economy standards and emissions control. Consequently, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the City's new regulations are preempted by both the EPCA and the CAA.

Taxicab RegulationsHybrid VehiclesFederal PreemptionEnergy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)Clean Air Act (CAA)Preliminary InjunctionEconomic MandateLease Rate ControlFuel Efficiency StandardsEmissions Control
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company (MHT), a stock transfer agent, sued Smith Barney, Robert Serio, and Tucker Anthony for losses sustained due to an employee's stock certificate embezzlement. MHT alleged violations of federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) and various common law claims. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that MHT lacked standing as neither a purchaser nor seller of securities, and the alleged fraud was not "in connection with" the purchase or sale of securities. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the remaining state law claims without prejudice due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Federal Securities LawRule 10b-5Exchange Act Section 10(b)StandingPurchaser-Seller RuleIn Connection With RequirementEmbezzlementStock Transfer AgentBrokerage AccountsConversion
References
24
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

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi

This cross-appeal addresses the interpretation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) concerning a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Association. The dispute centers on whether the City's unilateral implementation of revised grooming standards and modifications to the Vehicle Accident Review Board (VARB) procedural rules constituted mandatory subjects for bargaining as "conditions of employment." Applying a balancing test, the court determined that both the grooming standards and the VARB rules had a greater impact on the City's management prerogatives, particularly public image and safety, than on the fire fighters' working conditions. Consequently, these issues were not deemed "conditions of employment" requiring collective bargaining. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on grooming standards and reversed its ruling regarding the VARB rules.

Collective BargainingFPERAGrooming StandardsVehicle Accident Review BoardConditions of EmploymentManagement PrerogativesPublic SafetyFire FightersUnilateral ImplementationLabor Dispute
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 10,937 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