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. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. 03-07-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2009

Richard Joseph v. Tory James, Angela James, Tony Cussimanio and Robert Bullara

Richard Joseph appealed a summary judgment ruling in a case against Tory and Angela James, Tony Cussimanio, and Robert Bullara, involving claims of breach of contract and real estate fraud related to the sale of his home. The trial court had granted the appellees' motion for summary judgment, concluding that no enforceable contract existed due to a failure to satisfy the statute of frauds, as the modifications to the real estate offer form were not properly signed or authorized by the Jameses. Joseph argued on appeal that an enforceable contract did exist and that his fraud claim was valid. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that without a written agreement signed by the Jameses, the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and consequently, the real estate fraud claim also failed.

Real EstateContract DisputeStatute of FraudsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency LawReal Estate FraudTexas LawOffer and AcceptanceCounter-offer
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re James R.

This case addresses a neglect petition filed against a respondent father and mother concerning their child, James R. The respondent mother was found to have neglected James by refusing him shelter, food, clothing, and necessary counseling. A central issue was whether the noncustodial respondent father had an obligation to provide for his child when the custodial mother failed to act in the child's best interest, especially given his knowledge of the child's extreme vulnerability and distress, including suicidal ideation. The court unequivocally affirmed this obligation, ruling that the father's reliance on a prior custody agreement was insufficient. Consequently, the court also found the respondent father neglected James for failing to provide adequate shelter, food, and clothing, though able to do so.

Child NeglectParental ObligationNoncustodial Parent ResponsibilityFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildParental Rights and ResponsibilitiesAbandonmentChild WelfareDue ProcessState Intervention
References
11
Case No. 13-99-292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2000

De La Garza, Martin v. James C. Thomas, Inc., D/B/A James Thomas Exxon

Appellant, an employee of appellee James C. Thomas, Inc., suffered a knee injury while attempting to air a customer's tire when a part of the air hose blew off. After treatment and surgery, appellant was fired for failing to report to work. Appellee, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Fund, was sued for common law negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellee, finding no evidence of negligence or duty owed. Appellant argued the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur should apply, even though it was not formally pleaded initially. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, holding that res ipsa loquitur could apply to the case and that summary judgment was not proper under all the facts.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturCommon LawAppellate ReviewWorkers Compensation NonsubscriberEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityTexas LawPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. 09-06-126 CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2007

James Jones, A/K/A Squire James Jones, Jr. AKA Derrick Joseph Jones A/K/A Derrick Joseph v. State

James Jones was convicted of the murder of Graffit Jones Winford and sentenced to fifty years of confinement. On appeal, Jones argued the trial court erred by restricting his counsel's cross-examination of a State's witness during the punishment phase and by permitting the Court's bailiff to testify. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination, stating the proferred questions were either cumulative or irrelevant to punishment. Additionally, the court concluded that Jones suffered no prejudice or harm from the bailiff's brief testimony, given his minimal contact with the jury and the overall evidence. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsConfrontation ClauseWitness ImpeachmentJudicial DiscretionBailiff RoleJury ImpactSchizoaffective DisorderMitigating Evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. 02-10-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2011

James Chafin v. Richard G. Isbell and Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation

This case from the Second District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses the interpretation of a divorce decree concerning the division of real property. Appellant James Chafin contended that the decree only granted his ex-wife, Kristine, the "use and benefit" of the "Osprey property" until its sale, rather than divesting him of title, thereby making them tenants in common. Appellees Richard G. Isbell and Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation argued the decree fully divested James of his interest. The court found the decree unambiguous, concluding it awarded Kristine only the "use and benefit" and did not convey James's title interest. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Appellees and rendered judgment for James on his declaratory relief claims, remanding the partition claim for further proceedings.

Divorce Decree InterpretationReal Property DivisionTenancy in CommonSummary JudgmentContract LawProperty OwnershipDeclaratory JudgmentPartition ClaimTexas Court of AppealsMarital Estate
References
25
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24162 [84 Misc 3d 931]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2024

James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC

The case, James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, addresses a dispute over a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of James River's reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Re, to Fleming. Fleming refused to close the transaction, citing alleged breaches related to JRG Re's reserves and liquidity, and demanded a $78 million concession. James River sought specific performance through a mandatory preliminary injunction, arguing that Fleming's claims were baseless and contrary to the SPA's terms, particularly a clause prohibiting challenges to reserves and outlining a post-closing price adjustment process. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Masley, granted James River's motion, finding a clear likelihood of success on the merits, established irreparable harm due to reputational damage and operational disruption, and a favorable balance of equities, compelling Fleming to close the deal within 10 days.

Specific PerformanceStock Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractPreliminary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionContract InterpretationIrreparable HarmBalance of EquitiesReinsurance SubsidiaryClosing Conditions
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,099 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