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

Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Status Lounge Inc.

This case involves Status Lounge Incorporated suing media outlets, Hearst Newspapers, LLC and KHOU-TV, Inc., along with their reporters, for libel and business disparagement stemming from articles published about a shooting incident. The defendant media outlets filed a verified plea in abatement under the Defamation Mitigation Act (DMA), which automatically abated the lawsuit for sixty days. Following the abatement period, they moved to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), but the trial court denied these motions as untimely, adhering to the TCPA's strict sixty-day filing deadline post-service. On appeal, the central question was whether the DMA's abatement period tolls the TCPA's deadline for filing a motion to dismiss. The appellate court concluded that the DMA's abatement period does toll the TCPA's filing deadline, thereby making the defendants' motions timely, and consequently reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits.

DefamationLibelBusiness DisparagementTexas Citizens Participation ActDefamation Mitigation ActAbatementStatutory DeadlinesFirst Amendment RightsFree SpeechInterlocutory Appeal
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. 08-09-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2010

Edmund Forester v. El Paso Electric Company

Edmund Forester appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of El Paso Electric Company (EPEC) on a premises liability claim. Forester sustained injuries after falling through an EPEC utility platform cover while attempting to cross a median on foot. He sued EPEC, asserting they owed him a duty as an invitee. EPEC countered that Forester was a trespasser or licensee and that they lacked actual knowledge of any dangerous condition. The trial court sided with EPEC, ruling Forester was a licensee and granting a take-nothing judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Forester failed to present sufficient evidence to establish invitee status or to support his claim of gross negligence against EPEC.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentLicensee statusInvitee statusGross negligenceUtility platformEl Paso Court of AppealsAppellate reviewMutual benefitExtreme risk
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burkett v. Welborn

Kenneth Burkett and his wife, Betty, sued Rosalie Welborn and Leslie Welborn for negligence and premises liability after Kenneth was injured while salvaging a trailer. Burkett, an employee of Electro-Motor, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits but argued his injury was outside the scope of employment and Rosalie Welborn owed him a duty as an invitee. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, citing workers' compensation exclusivity. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding Burkett was within the scope of employment. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the premises liability issue against Rosalie Welborn, determining that her co-employee status did not negate her potential liability as a landowner to an invitee, and factual disputes existed regarding premises defects.

NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDual Capacity DoctrineInvitee StatusCo-employee ImmunityTexas Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivier v. Snowden

William Snowden, an employee of a general contractor, sued O. V. Olivier, a subcontractor, for personal injuries sustained from a fall off Olivier's scaffold on a construction site. Snowden argued he was an invitee due to a custom of mutual scaffold use and Olivier's alleged negligence in using a one-inch-thick board. The Texas Employers Insurance Association intervened, seeking subrogation for workers' compensation benefits paid. The Texas Supreme Court analyzed Snowden's legal status on the scaffold, concluding he was a licensee, not an invitee, because his use did not provide a mutual benefit or pecuniary advantage to Olivier. Therefore, Olivier only owed a duty to abstain from intentional or willful injury, not ordinary negligence, leading the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts' judgments and deny recovery to Snowden and the intervenor.

premises liabilitylicensee statusinvitee statussubcontractor liabilityscaffold accidentconstruction site injurymutual benefit testordinary negligencegross negligenceassumption of risk
References
17
Case No. ADJ16491268; ADJ15884384; ADJ16161110; ADJ16161057; ADJ16161093; ADJ15760386; ADJ18891808; ADJ19153721; ADJ16116250
Significant

Steve Hoddinott, et al. vs. Bravo Security Services, Inc.; National Liability Fire Ins. Co., administered by Biberk Business Insurance, et al.

The Appeals Board issued a notice to set a status conference to assist the parties in further discussing their stipulations with a designated hearing officer.

En BancRemovalStipulationSupplemental BriefingStatus ConferenceHearing OfficerDeputy CommissionerAppeals BoardAdjudication NumbersBravo Security Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. 25874/98
Regular Panel Decision

Jun Chi Guan v. Tuscan Dairy Farms

This dissenting opinion concerns a case where plaintiff Shao Zhen Kwan, a grandmother, sought damages for emotional injuries after witnessing her grandson's fatal accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a grandparent does not qualify as "immediate family" for emotional distress claims under New York law and that the grandmother did not sufficiently witness the event. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The dissenting judge argues that established precedent does not preclude grandparents from "immediate family" status, citing their special legal recognition and caregiving roles. Furthermore, the judge contends that contemporaneous awareness, rather than literal witnessing, is sufficient for such claims. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Immediate Family DoctrineZone of Danger RuleEmotional Distress DamagesBystander RecoveryNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressGrandparent Visitation RightsNew York Tort LawSummary Judgment MotionDe Facto Parent StatusContemporaneous Awareness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,611 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