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. 01-02-00807-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2006

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A/ Texas Workers' Compansation Ins. Fund v. Ray Ferguson Interest, Inc., RFI Brazos Paving Co., Inc.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (the Fund) appealed a judgment from a jury verdict in favor of Ray Ferguson Interests, Inc. (RFI), awarding RFI over $2.2 million in actual damages, $3.5 million in statutory damages for Insurance Code violations, and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from the Fund's investigation into RFI's workers' compensation premiums, alleging premium fraud related to RFI's subcontractor, Brazos. RFI counter-sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Insurance Code for the Fund's actions. The appellate court found errors in the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest to the Fund and in the jury's damage awards for 'lost time' due to litigation and for 'loss of value' or 'credit reputation' resulting from statements protected by judicial immunity or lacking direct causation to the Fund's alleged contract breaches or deceptive acts. Consequently, the court reversed RFI's recovery, affirmed parts of the judgment, and remanded the case with instructions, including entering a take-nothing judgment on RFI's claims.

Workers' CompensationInsurance FraudBreach of ContractUnfair Insurance PracticesTexas Insurance CodeJudicial ImmunityDamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestCausation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2006

County of Westchester v. Doyle

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that had denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The original order confirmed the award and directed interest on compensation for William Leverance's out-of-title work to be calculated from August 20, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial to vacate the arbitration award, determining that the award did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's authority. However, the order was modified to direct that interest on the award be calculated from September 9, 2005, the date of the award, instead of August 20, 2004. All other contentions raised by the appellant were found to be without merit.

arbitrationawardvacaturCPLR Article 75out-of-title workinterest calculationappellate reviewjudicial modificationWestchester Countypublic policy
References
10
Case No. 02-15-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

in the Interest of M.C. and A.C., Minor Children

In this case, R.C. appealed the trial court's judgment for S.G. regarding past-due child support. The dispute originated from a 1986 divorce decree ordering R.C. to pay child support, which S.G. sought to collect over two decades later. The trial court initially awarded S.G. $139,976.43, but this order was later set aside, and a new trial was granted. Subsequently, the trial court signed a judgment for S.G. in the amount of $146,437.56, plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs. R.C. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the arrearages calculation and the award of attorney's fees, and also requested a payout schedule. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fees and the decision not to establish a payout schedule, but reversed the amount of child support arrearages, rendering judgment for S.G. in the amount of $104,862.27, which was the amount R.C. had stipulated to.

Child Support ArrearagesFamily LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInterest CalculationAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialWage AssignmentChild Support Enforcement
References
38
Case No. 01A01-9506-CV-00255
Regular Panel Decision

Vooys v. Turner

The case concerns an appeal by the Husband challenging the trial court's award of post-judgment interest to the Wife on $185,000. These funds were deposited by the Husband with the court clerk as the purchase price for the marital residence, which had been awarded to the Wife. During the initial appeal of the divorce decree, Husband appealed the award of the house and successfully moved to stay execution of the judgment without bond, requesting the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account. After the initial judgment was affirmed, Wife sought post-judgment interest. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court held that a party depositing funds into court does not avoid statutory post-judgment interest unless the payment is an unconditional satisfaction of the judgment, especially when the depositor appeals and obtains a stay, thus depriving the other party of the funds' use.

Post-judgment interestDivorceAppellate reviewFunds deposited in courtStay of executionMarital propertyAlimony in solidoStatutory interpretationRule 67.03Rule 67.04
References
14
Case No. 13-06-112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2008

Michael Gibney, Individually and on Behalf of Micro Blend, Inc. v. Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests and Ana-Tech, Inc.

Michael Gibney, individually and on behalf of Micro-Blend, Inc., appealed a judgment from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. Gibney had filed a shareholder derivative suit for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and an individual claim for shareholder oppression against Roy Culver, Jr., Culver Interests, and Ana-Tech, Inc. The trial court awarded Gibney $250,000 for shareholder oppression but dismissed his derivative claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Gibney's derivative claims, finding them time-barred or lacking evidence for damages. The court also reversed the finding of shareholder oppression, concluding there was insufficient evidence for excessive compensation and no other acts constituting oppression, rendering a take-nothing judgment for Roy Culver, Jr. Finally, Gibney's request for prejudgment interest was denied.

Shareholder Derivative SuitFraud ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyShareholder OppressionDirected VerdictStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleExcessive CompensationClose Corporation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

United States Ex Rel. Lamesa National Bank v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (In Re Schooler)

This memorandum opinion addresses the motion for prejudgment interest filed by Lamesa National Bank (LNB) against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual was previously found liable to the bankruptcy estate of Robert and Tina Schooler for $112,247.66. The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest, citing federal law and a strong presumption in favor of such awards, which aim to compensate the estate for the loss of funds. Adopting guidance from state law for the interest rate, the court set it at 5.0% compounded annually, with accrual commencing from the complaint's filing date of September 8, 2009.

Prejudgment InterestBankruptcy EstateFederal LawDiscretionary AwardAccrual DateInterest RateFifth CircuitNorthern District of TexasBankruptcy CodeInsurance Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Mitchell

This case addresses whether prejudgment interest, awarded to a former wife from a former husband based on a disputed property settlement agreement, needs to be specifically pleaded as special damages under Rule 9.07 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals had ruled that such pleading was necessary. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was authorized under a prayer for general relief, considering it a necessary result of the failure to pay an obligation. The Court likened prejudgment interest to attorney's fees, which are discretionary and do not always require special pleading when the amount is certain or ascertainable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Prejudgment InterestSpecial DamagesGeneral DamagesDivorce DecreeProperty Settlement AgreementRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewEquityDiscretionary AwardAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1989

Gaspard v. American Transit Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment that confirmed a July 19, 1987 arbitrator’s award and a December 28, 1987 master arbitrator’s award. The respondent’s application for a trial de novo was denied, and the petitioner was awarded judgment including principal, interest, attorneys’ fees, and disbursements, totaling $66,443.42. The respondent argued that interest was improperly calculated and that proof of claim was never properly filed, contentions raised for the first time on a motion for reargument which was denied and not appealed. The appellate court found these arguments precluded by the respondent’s failure to raise them in a timely appeal to the master arbitrator and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Arbitrator's AwardTrial De NovoInterest CalculationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTimeliness of AppealReargumentAppellate ReviewCPLR 7510Master ArbitratorProof of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2013

Kingdon Capital Manangement v. Kaufman

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a prior arbitration award from June 28, 2012, which included a sum, prejudgment interest, costs, and disbursements. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the arbitrators exceeded their authority or manifestly disregarded the law. Furthermore, the respondent lacked a valid claim under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) due to a lack of timely assertion before the arbitrators. The arbitrators' decision to deny incentive compensation beyond the termination date and to not award attorneys' fees or modify the prejudgment interest rate was upheld. The appellant's remaining arguments were found to be without merit.

Arbitration AwardAffirmed JudgmentLabor LawIncentive CompensationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesArbitrator PowersManifest Disregard of LawOral ModificationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1990

Long v. Mattingly

This case, an appeal from a motor vehicle collision damages action, focuses on the determination of interest due to plaintiffs Geneva I. Long and Raymond C. Long. Following jury verdicts and subsequent remittiturs, the Appellate Court further reduced the awards to $50,000 and $10,000 respectively. The defendants appealed the trial court's decision regarding post-judgment interest, arguing against its allowance from the original verdict date and claiming the appellate mandate lacked instructions. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, clarifying that remittiturs are made by the successful party's waiver, not by court modification, thus entitling plaintiffs to statutory interest on their reduced judgments from the jury verdict date. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' right to 'interest on interest' and denied their request for damages due to frivolous appeal, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment with interest accruing from November 29, 1990.

Motor vehicle collisionPost-judgment interestRemittiturJury verdictAppellate reviewStatutory interestTennessee lawDamagesFrivolous appealWaiver
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 12,667 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