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

Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.

This is a patent infringement suit where Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. (KEI) alleged that Trinity Industries, Inc. (Trinity) infringed two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,022,003 (the ’003 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,505,820 (the ’820 Patent), with its roadside safety devices, the MPS-350 and TRACC. Trinity denied infringement and asserted the patents were invalid. The court granted KEI's motion for summary judgment regarding ownership of the patents. However, the court found that Trinity's MPS-350 and TRACC devices did not infringe the asserted claims of either the ’003 or the ’820 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, thus granting Trinity's motions for non-infringement. Furthermore, the court denied Trinity's motions for summary judgment regarding the invalidity of the ’003 and ’820 Patents, concluding that they were not invalid for lack of a written description or anticipation by prior art. The case was bifurcated, with equitable defenses to be addressed in a separate order.

Patent InfringementRoadside Safety DevicesCrash CushionsTruck-Mounted AttenuatorsSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionWritten Description RequirementAnticipationProsecution History EstoppelDoctrine of Equivalents
References
121
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08236
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2014

Matter of Panorama Windows, Ltd. v. 350 E. 55th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award that was initially confirmed by the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this judgment. The court found no evidence that the arbitrator's conversation with the petitioner prejudiced the respondent. Furthermore, the award of damages for additional work, granted pursuant to the respondent's oral directives, was determined not to be in manifest disregard of the law or to exceed the arbitrator's established powers. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the prior decision.

Arbitration AwardContract DisputeAffirmed JudgmentAppellate ReviewOral DirectivesArbitrator PowersPrejudiceManifest Disregard of LawSupreme Court ConfirmationAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bleecker Charles Co. v. 350 Bleecker Street Apartment Corp.

This case involves a declaratory judgment action under the Condominium and Cooperative Conversion Protection and Abuse Relief Act. The court previously awarded summary judgment to Bleecker Charles Co., the sponsor of a co-operative conversion project, ruling against 350 Bleecker St. Apt. Corp., the co-operative corporation, regarding an ineffective lease termination. The current "Opinion and Order" addresses the Sponsor's motion for attorneys' fees and an injunction to prevent the Co-op from passing on a portion of the fee award to the Sponsor as a shareholder. The court granted the Sponsor's motion for attorneys' fees, finding the requested amount of approximately $345,000 reasonable based on the lodestar method, and denied the motion for injunctive relief, stating that the Sponsor, as a shareholder, should bear its share of the litigation costs.

Attorneys' FeesLodestar MethodCondominium and Cooperative Conversion Protection and Abuse Relief ActDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionShareholder RightsLitigation CostsStatutory Fee ShiftingReasonable Hourly RatePrevailing Party
References
30
Case No. ADJ7415342
Regular
Jul 01, 2013

Maggie Davis vs. Kern Medical Center, County of Kern

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's Petition for Reconsideration regarding an award of attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to award applicant's attorney $770.00 based on 2.2 hours at $350.00 per hour for deposition representation. The Board found the defendant's arguments regarding the hourly rate, comparing it to physician and defense attorney rates, to be irrelevant and frivolous. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that applicant attorneys' fees are distinct from defense counsel's billing practices and established $350.00 per hour as reasonable for a Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist in the Bakersfield office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §5710Deposition Attorney's FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistBakersfieldKern Medical CenterCounty of KernApplicant Attorney
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Fetterman Ex Rel. Fetterman v. King

This case is the second appeal in litigation between the Estate of Sherman Fetterman and John King regarding attorney fees owed to Fetterman's estate for legal services provided to King in securing a landfill permit in Scott County, Tennessee. In the first appeal, the contract for an $800,000 fee was deemed unenforceable, and the case was remanded to determine the quantum meruit value of Fetterman's services. The Trial Court subsequently awarded the Estate $350,000 plus prejudgment interest at 10%. The appellate court affirmed the $350,000 award but modified the prejudgment interest rate to 5%, remanding for recalculation of interest based on a prior deposit. The court emphasized that the Trial Court's factual findings regarding the quantum meruit value were supported by evidence and credibility determinations.

Attorney feesQuantum meruitContract enforceabilityLegal servicesLandfill permitPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewTrial court judgmentProfessional conductExpert testimony
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. 2-05-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

Margaret Young, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of William R. Young v. Venkateswarlu Thota, M.D. and North Texas Cardiology Center

Appellant Margaret Young appealed an adverse jury verdict in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Thota and North Texas Cardiology Center, stemming from her deceased husband William R. Young's cardiac catheterization. Young alleged Dr. Thota's negligence caused an arterial tear and subsequent complications due to improper catheter placement and failure to diagnose. The trial court's jury charge included instructions on William Young's contributory negligence and Dr. Thota's new and independent cause. The appellate court found errors in the jury charge regarding the submission of contributory negligence as a liability theory instead of a damages mitigation instruction, and the inclusion of a new and independent cause instruction for Dr. Thota. Concluding that these errors were harmful and precluded a fair trial, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Medical MalpracticeContributory NegligenceJury Charge ErrorProximate CauseHarm AnalysisInferential Rebuttal InstructionsUnavoidable AccidentNew and Independent CauseCardiac CatheterizationArterial Laceration
References
69
Case No. 2-03-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

in the Interest of T.N. and M.N., Children

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of J.N. (Mother) and S.N. (Father) to their children, T.N. and M.N. The parents appealed the termination, challenging the children's attorney's performance, trial court's rulings on challenges for cause, and the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment and the children's best interest. The court found Mother lacked standing for her complaints and failed to preserve other issues. For Father, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony and found sufficient evidence of endangerment due to his conduct, including leaving children with a substance-abusing grandmother and Mother, and their own domestic violence. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in the children's best interest, citing Father's instability and limited participation in recommended programs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyAttorney Ad LitemDue ProcessChallenges for CauseExpert TestimonyLay Testimony
References
21
Case No. ADJ273572
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

DIANE DRUEBERT vs. KELLY STAFF LEASING, INC.

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to the applicant's counsel for successfully opposing the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Appeals Board awarded $4,350.00 in attorney's fees and $142.61 in costs, totaling $4,492.61, after reviewing the attorney's itemized time and the complexity of the appellate work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Reasonable CostsCourt of AppealAppellate Attorney's FeesComplex IssuesLegislative IntentSocial Security Offset
References
1
Case No. ADJ10765191
Regular
May 18, 2018

LARHONISH CAREY vs. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant's attorneys seek reconsideration of a $0.00 attorney's fee award where their Compromise and Release contemplated a $1,350.00 fee. The Board granted reconsideration, finding procedural errors in the attorney's fee disclosure forms and the signing of the C&R by a non-attorney representative. The Board will affirm the $0.00 fee award unless the attorneys correct these deficiencies within 15 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10773Non-attorney Hearing RepresentativeFee Disclosure StatementAttorney DisclosureExpedited Trial Hearing
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 58 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