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. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc.

Plaintiff O. Beirne Chisolm filed a federal lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc. and Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This federal action followed a similar state court lawsuit where Chisolm claimed violations of state labor and executive laws, alongside breach of contract. Defendants moved to stay the federal action and compel arbitration, having successfully done so in the parallel state court case. The federal court agreed with the state court's reasoning, granting the motion to compel arbitration, and found that Chisolm's U-4 Form mandated arbitration under NYSE Rules and NASD Code, as his claims arose from his employment. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' requests for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel, determining that Chisolm's arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, were not groundless.

Age DiscriminationArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormNYSE RulesNASD ArbitrationEmployment LawSanctionsRule 11Section 1927
References
29
Case No. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC

Appellants Rebecca Coffey, Angela Douglas, Donna Kisor, and Elizabeth Wallace appealed summary judgments dismissing their claims against Singer Asset Finance Company, Settlement Capital Corporation, and Merrick Bank Corporation. Appellants had previously settled personal injury lawsuits, receiving structured payments, and later took loans from appellees, using their future settlement payments as collateral. They sought to void these security interests, arguing they were prohibited by the insurance code, structured settlement documents, and public policy, contending the pledges constituted unlawful assignments or commutations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the loan transactions created security interests, not assignments or commutations, and were thus permitted under the insurance code. Furthermore, the court found that the appellants had either waived or were estopped from asserting anti-assignment provisions in their original settlement agreements, and that these transactions did not violate public policy.

Structured SettlementsSecurity InterestsAnti-Assignment ClausesWaiverEstoppelPublic PolicyAnnuity ContractsInsurance CodeTexas LawLoan Agreements
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Nikko Asset Management Co. v. UBS AG, UBS Warburg (Japan), Ltd.

Plaintiffs, Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd., MMF, and HMMF (collectively 'Nikko'), sued defendants, UBS AG and its subsidiaries ('UBS'), alleging violations of federal securities laws and tort claims. Nikko accused UBS of fraudulently selling credit-linked notes (CLNs) in Japan without disclosing critical information about Enron Corporation's financial instability, knowledge UBS allegedly gained through its U.S. dealings with Enron. The core issue was whether U.S. federal securities laws applied to these predominantly foreign transactions. The court granted UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged U.S. conduct was merely preparatory and did not directly cause the plaintiffs' losses from the Japanese transactions, thus failing both the 'effects test' and the 'conduct test'.

Securities FraudCredit-Linked NotesSubject Matter JurisdictionForeign TransactionsEnron ScandalConduct TestEffects TestMotion to DismissInvestment BankingInternational Law
References
49
Case No. 14-08-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2008

in Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West (Relators) against British American Offshore Limited (BAOL). Relators sought to compel the district court judge to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss, which was based on a forum-selection clause. The underlying dispute involved BAOL's tort claims against Relators, who were not signatories to the original rig contracts but sought to enforce the clause. The appellate court denied the petition, ruling that the Relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to adequately present it in their initial petition.

MandamusForum Selection ClauseWaiverAppellate ProcedureTexas LawTort ClaimsMotion to DismissReal Party in InterestContract DisputeJurisdiction
References
19
Case No. 06-01-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2001

Duke Energy Field Services Assets, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

Duke Energy Field Services Assets, L.L.C. appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company. Duke, as the current owner of a gas plant, sought a declaratory judgment that National Union was obligated to defend it in a personal injury lawsuit filed by a Zaval-Tex Construction Company employee, Rafael Chavez. The central issue was whether Duke qualified as an 'additional insured' under the liability insurance policy issued by National Union to Zaval-Tex, specifically regarding the policy's 'written contract' requirement. The trial court had granted National Union's motion for summary judgment, concluding Duke was not an additional insured due to the absence of a direct written contract between Duke and Zaval-Tex. The appellate court found that Duke presented sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise fact issues on several legal theories, including successor liability, adoption of the contract by action, and oral assignment, which could establish Duke as a party to the contract with Zaval-Tex. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for trial.

Insurance PolicyAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentContract LawCorporate AcquisitionSuccessor LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsWritten Contract Requirement
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1990

Neumark v. Neumark

In a matrimonial action, the defendant former husband appealed and the plaintiff wife cross-appealed from portions of an order and judgment concerning the division of marital assets and maintenance. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially directed the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence, pay accrued arrears of $101,535.91, and $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and reduced maintenance to $800 a month. The Appellate Court modified the order, deleting the pension benefit award and remitting for a determination of present value. Maintenance was further reduced to $500 a month, and accrued arrears for the plaintiff were adjusted to $99,255.91. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Matrimonial ActionDivorceMaintenance ArrearsPension BenefitsMarital ResidenceEquitable DistributionDownward ModificationChange of CircumstancesAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 376 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