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

Myriad Development, Inc. v. Alltech, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Myriad Development, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and Alltech, Inc. (Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff) concerning three contracts: the APPRISE Agreement, AIMS Agreement, and Subcontract for Labor, as well as claims of trade secret misappropriation. Myriad alleged breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, while Alltech filed counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion of photographs. The jury found Alltech materially breached the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements, and misappropriated Myriad's trade secrets. However, the Court, after review, ruled that Myriad could not recover lost profits for breach of the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements due to contract cancellation. The Court awarded Myriad $21,263 for unpaid amounts under the APPRISE Agreement, $198,110 for unpaid amounts under the Subcontract for Labor, and $250,000 in reasonable royalty for trade secret misappropriation. Alltech's counterclaims for conversion damages were denied due to insufficient evidence of fair market value.

Contract BreachTrade Secret MisappropriationLost ProfitsReasonable Royalty DamagesPunitive DamagesConversionAffirmative DefenseContract InterpretationRule 50(b) MotionJury Verdict
References
113
Case No. 05-18-01447-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2020

Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. v. Innvision Hospitality, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between two competitors, Snowhite Textile and Furnishings, Inc. and Innvision Hospitality, Inc., in the furniture, fixture, and equipment (FF&E) industry. Innvision sued Snowhite for violations of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) and tortious interference with prospective business and existing contracts, alleging Snowhite misappropriated its bid proposal for the 'Odessa Project'. The district court rendered judgment in favor of Innvision. Snowhite appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, as well as the award of attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference, damages, and willful and malicious misappropriation supporting attorney's fees.

Trade Secret MisappropriationTexas Uniform Trade Secrets ActTortious InterferenceProspective Business RelationsAppellate JudgmentSufficiency of EvidenceLost Profits DamagesAttorney's Fees AwardWillful MisappropriationConfidential Business Information
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Marzovilla v. New York State Industrial Board of Appeals

Petitioners Nicola Marzovilla and Valodome, Inc., challenged a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which found they violated Labor Law § 196-d by misappropriating employee tips at their New York City restaurant, iTrulli. The misappropriation occurred from 2001 to 2005 through the inclusion of senior employees, Gianni Linardic and Alex Steidl, in a mandatory tip pool, despite their ineligibility due to supervisory roles or non-service primary duties. The Department of Labor (DOL) initially assessed approximately $407,000 in owed wages, interest, and penalties, a finding largely upheld by the IBA. The Appellate Division confirmed the IBA's decision, concluding that Linardic exercised "meaningful authority" over other servers and Steidl's duties were not principally customer service, thus rendering both ineligible for tip sharing. Consequently, the determination of tip misappropriation was upheld, and the petitioners' CPLR article 78 petition was dismissed.

Tip PoolingWage MisappropriationLabor Law § 196-dIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewRestaurant IndustrySupervisory EmployeesTip EligibilityCPLR Article 78Judicial Review
References
6
Case No. 01-22-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; Dwg Fm Inc. D/B/A Splendor; D. Houston Inc. D/B/A Treasures; A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; And W.L. York, Inc. D/B/A Cover Girls, Incorrectly Named as A.H.D.Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; Dwg Fm Inc.,d/B/A Splendor; D. Texas Investments, Inc. D/B/A Treasures; A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Treasures; And W.L. York, Inc. D/B/A Treasures v. Jaime Middleton; Cora Skinner; Jamillette Gaxiola, Jennifer Zharinova; Jessica Hinton; Lina Posada; Lucy Pinder; Paola Canas; Sandra Valencia; Tiffany Toth;Cielo Jean Gibson; Maysa Qui; Elizabeth Turner; Emily Sears; Gemma Lee Farrell and Jaclyn Swedberg

This case involves an appeal by adult entertainment establishments from a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of professional models and social influencers. The models sued for invasion of privacy by misappropriation and negligence, alleging the unauthorized use of their images in the clubs' social media advertisements. The trial court awarded over $1.4 million in damages. The appellate court found that while the misappropriation claim was conclusively established, genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the negligence claims. Additionally, the court determined that the unliquidated damages were improperly awarded via summary judgment. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages.

Misappropriation of likenessNegligenceRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentUnliquidated damagesAppellate reviewSocial media advertisingAdult entertainmentProfessional modelsCommercial benefit
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Durst

John E. Durst, Jr., an attorney, misappropriated $500,000 in settlement funds intended for his client, Cirro Rodriguez, which should have been used to purchase an annuity. Durst made inconsistent payments to Rodriguez before ceasing them entirely. He subsequently failed to provide an accounting to new counsel or cooperate with the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District's investigation, despite multiple requests and subpoenas. Facing disciplinary charges for professional misconduct, including misappropriation of client funds and non-cooperation, Durst submitted an affidavit of resignation. The Court accepted his resignation, disbarred him, and ordered his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, also noting potential restitution and reimbursement obligations to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

Misappropriation of fundsProfessional misconductAttorney disciplineDisbarmentClient fundsFailure to cooperateResignationGrievance CommitteeJudiciary Law violationsRules of Professional Conduct violations
References
0
Case No. 01-21-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a temporary injunction issued against TASF, LLC, and its principals for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from Turn2 Specialty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC. The misappropriated information included confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms, and vendor lists. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the information deserved trade secret protection and that Turn2 took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. The court found one issue moot due to the expiration of a provision and modified the injunction to specifically define the protected trade secrets, ensuring clarity for the enjoined parties.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationConfidential InformationProprietary InformationBusiness PracticesContract TermsBilling RatesVendor ListsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Salo

Respondent Frederick William Salo, an attorney, faced disciplinary charges from the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) for various professional misconducts including misappropriation of third-party funds, commingling, and improper check designations. Salo admitted the factual allegations but argued a lack of venal intent, attributing his actions to severe PTSD and depression following the 9/11 attacks, which impaired his ability to manage his IOLA account. Expert psychological reports confirmed his condition. The court, while sustaining most charges, dismissed the charge of intentional conversion due to insufficient proof of venal intent, acknowledging the impact of his PTSD. Despite the non-venal nature of the misappropriation, the court deemed a one-year suspension from the practice of law to be the appropriate sanction.

attorney disciplineprofessional misconductescrow account violationsclient fundsmisappropriationcomminglingPTSDpsychological impairmentmitigating circumstancesvenal intent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Paul v. Haley

Emma Lee Paul sued Alex Haley, Doubleday Publishing Company, and American Broadcasting Companies (ABC) for the alleged misappropriation of novel ideas from her unpublished autobiography, The Bold Truth, claiming they were used in Haley's book Roots and its televised adaptations. After initial federal copyright claims were dismissed, Paul filed a state action in Nassau County Supreme Court for unfair competition and breach of implied contract, both predicated on "idea theft." The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that Paul's claimed "ideas" lacked the requisite novelty and originality for protection under New York law, and therefore could not be misappropriated. The court also found compelling evidence that Roots was independently conceived by Haley before Paul submitted her manuscript to Doubleday. The complaint against all defendants was dismissed.

Intellectual PropertyIdea TheftCopyright LawNovelty RequirementSummary JudgmentUnfair CompetitionImplied ContractLiterary WorksIndependent CreationPreemption
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Haynes

The plaintiffs, Eunice Rodriguez and Nicholas Mancuso, members of Local 237's Executive Board, sued Local 237, its president Carl Haynes, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). They alleged interference with their union election campaign, misappropriation of union resources for Haynes' re-election, unequal treatment, and suppression of free speech under the LMRDA, as well as improper disciplinary action and failure to convene a trial board under the LMRA, and misappropriation of union assets under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction for LMRDA claims, failure to exhaust internal union remedies for LMRA claims, and non-compliance with statutory prerequisites for New York Labor Law claims. The court granted the defendants' motion in its entirety, concluding that Local 237 was not a "labor organization" under the LMRDA and that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their internal union remedies.

Union disputeElection campaignMisappropriation of assetsLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA)Exhaustion of remediesSubject matter jurisdictionInternal union proceduresMotion to dismissPublic sector union
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 99 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