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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
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
Jun 16, 2015

Texas Ear Nose & Throat Consultants, PLLC, Joseph Edmonds, Newton Duncan and James Albright v. John K. Jones M.D.

This case involves consolidated cross-appeals stemming from the departure of John Jones, a founding member, from Texas Ear Nose & Throat Consultants, PLLC (TENT). Jones sued TENT and other members for breach of agreements, shareholder oppression, and denial of access to records, while TENT counter-claimed for breach of contract. A jury found both TENT and Jones breached agreements, with TENT breaching first, and also found shareholder oppression, leading to a trial court judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees to both sides, and ordering a buy-out of Jones's membership. On appeal, the court modified the award of attorney's fees for denial of access to be against TENT and remanded for recalculation. It reversed the trial court's buy-out order and remanded Jones's shareholder oppression claims for further consideration under evolving legal standards. The court also reversed TENT's award of damages and attorney's fees for Jones's alleged breach of contract, effectively rendering a take-nothing judgment on those claims. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed as modified.

Shareholder OppressionBreach of ContractLimited Liability Company (LLC)Partnership DisputeEmployment AgreementAncillary IncomeAttorney's FeesAccess to RecordsRetirement NoticeDamages Calculation
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. 05-18-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2019

Quality Metrics Partners, LLC, Clearview Diagnostics, LLC, CGK Consulting, LLC, CGK Medical Management, LLC, CGK Medical Ventures, LLC, Brodie Flanders, Michael Morales, Michael Knall, Anthony Kim, and Christopher R. Peyton v. Greg Blasingame Capricia Larson Gabby Consulting, LLC And DX Power Moves Consulting, LLC

Appellants challenged the trial court’s denial of their consolidated motions to compel arbitration. The dispute involves a series of contractual relationships, including a Representative Marketing Agreement, an alleged oral contract, and a Distribution Agreement containing an arbitration provision. The Court determined that QMP and Clearview are intended third-party beneficiaries of the Distribution Agreement, extending the arbitration clause's benefits to their agents. Consequently, all direct claims against the QMP Appellants, as well as their related tort claims, fall within the broad scope of the arbitration provision. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for all disputes between the parties to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeThird-Party BeneficiaryNon-Signatory ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationTort ClaimsIndependent ContractorMarketing Services
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Legal Aid Society

Plaintiff, an attorney formerly employed by The Legal Aid Society, initiated this action seeking wage step increases. The case was initially removed to federal court under Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, based on an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. However, through subsequent proceedings and clarifications by plaintiff's counsel, it became evident that the claim was predicated solely on an alleged independent oral promise made by the Society to individual attorneys, rather than a contract between an employer and a labor organization. The court concluded that Section 301 jurisdiction only applies to violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization, and thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the individual oral contract claim. Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Labour LawSubject Matter JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractWage DisputesDistrict CourtEmployment LawNational Labor Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2001

Marcano v. Litman & Litman, P.C.

This case concerns an action for legal malpractice brought by a laborer who suffered a construction site injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-appellant law firm, specializing in workers' compensation, committed malpractice by failing to advise him about potential third-party personal injury claims or to verify if such claims were being handled by the defendant-respondent personal injury law firm. The defendant-appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no such duty since the plaintiff had already consulted with a personal injury lawyer. However, the Supreme Court, New York County, denied this motion, a decision later unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found a material issue of fact, emphasizing the appellant's affirmative duty to ensure the plaintiff understood the limits of its representation and its alleged repeated assurances that his personal injury claims were "being taken care of."

legal malpracticeworkers' compensationpersonal injuryduty of caresummary judgmentlaw firmattorney-client relationshipprofessional responsibilitythird-party claimsappellate decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,767 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