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. 15-24-00133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Insight Investments, LLC v. Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

This document is an Appellant’s Opposed Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief filed by Insight Investments, LLC. Insight is appealing a trial court order from the 380th District Court, Collin County, Texas, which mandated a supersedeas bond of $5,903,679.08. Insight argues that the underlying judgment primarily grants equitable relief and attorney’s fees, without specifying a monetary award for the breach of contract claim, and that the trial court's order was issued without a hearing. Insight initially posted a $500 cash deposit, believing it sufficient to cover attorney’s fees, and now seeks an emergency stay from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to prevent execution of the judgment pending a review of the supersedeas amount.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefSupersedeas BondAppealBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefAttorneys' FeesTrial Court OrderAppellate ProcedureStay of Execution
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2007

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Louis Vuitton Malletier initiated an action against Dooney & Bourke, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under state and federal laws. The Court addressed two key legal questions: the necessity of proving willful deceit for profit recovery in federal trademark infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the requirement of showing actual damages for monetary relief in federal dilution claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The District Court affirmed both requirements, holding that a finding of the defendant's willful deceptiveness is a prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement suits, thereby upholding the George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc. precedent. Additionally, the court ruled that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) is not retroactively applicable to monetary relief for dilution claims, necessitating proof of actual dilution for pre-TDRA conduct. Consequently, Louis Vuitton must establish willful deceit to recover Dooney & Bourke's profits and actual dilution to be entitled to monetary relief on its federal dilution claim.

Trademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionLanham ActWillful DeceptionProfit AwardsMonetary ReliefRetroactivityTrademark Dilution Revision ActFederal Law
References
27
Case No. 2011-43366
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC

Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC, seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s March 4, 2014 sanction order. The sanctions were imposed due to a 15-month delay in producing photographs of an accident scene where Salvadore Maciel was injured. Noble argues the trial court abused its discretion in striking two of its defenses (contributory negligence and open and obvious character of vessel conditions) and in awarding over $50,000 in additional monetary sanctions. The court conditionally grants mandamus relief, in part, directing the trial court to vacate the portion of the order striking Noble's defenses, while denying relief regarding the monetary sanctions.

Mandamus ReliefSanctions OrderDiscovery AbuseStriking DefensesMonetary SanctionsCivil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionE-DiscoveryAttorney's FeesEvidence Exclusion
References
14
Case No. 03-13-00616-CV, 03-13-00617-CV, 03-13-00618-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2014

Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves three appeals concerning workers’ compensation "stop-loss" disputes. The district courts had reversed administrative orders that favored Vista Medical Center Hospital and awarded Texas Mutual Insurance Company recoupment for additional reimbursements paid. Vista appealed, contending that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to award monetary relief, as these claims fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The Court of Appeals referenced a controlling prior decision that addressed identical issues. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgments concerning monetary relief for Texas Mutual, dismissed those claims due to lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationStop-Loss DisputesAppellate JurisdictionMonetary ReliefRecoupmentAdministrative OrderTravis CountyTexas LawInsurance DisputesReimbursement Claims
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. 06-03-00135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2004

Pat Forth, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Pat Forth sued Allstate Indemnity Company after her daughter's automobile accident, alleging Allstate arbitrarily paid only a portion of medical expenses using a computerized database (MBRS) and an eighty-fifth percentile standard, rather than 'reasonable' expenses. Forth initially sought both retrospective relief for past claims and prospective relief to enjoin future use of MBRS, but later removed requests for monetary damages. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. On appeal, the court held that Forth lacked standing for prospective relief because she was no longer an Allstate insured. However, the appellate court found Forth had standing for retrospective relief regarding her past claims, asserting that an injury existed due to Allstate's alleged failure to pay reasonable expenses as per the policy. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal was vacated regarding past claims and remanded for further proceedings.

StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefInsurance LawPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Medical ExpensesClass ActionAppellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionMootness
References
13
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education v. O'Rourke

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Weiss argues against the majority's decision to uphold a monetary award, contending that while the award itself wasn't punitive or against public policy, the monetary relief granted was gratuitous and constitutionally prohibited under NY Const, art VIII, § 1. The dissent highlights that the affected teachers were not required to perform additional duties and remained fully compensated for their work. It asserts that the arbitrator's directive to discontinue the challenged preassignments provided a complete remedy. Therefore, the additional monetary award was deemed unwarranted and an unconstitutional gift of public funds, suggesting it should have been vacated for exceeding the arbitrator's authority.

Dissenting OpinionMonetary AwardArbitration AwardPublic FundsConstitutional LawCollective Bargaining AgreementTeacher EmploymentSchool District AuthorityGratuitous AwardExcess of Authority
References
5
Case No. E2024-00741-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

CARBON FIBER RECYCLING, LLC v. TIMOTHY SPAHN

A Tennessee LLC, Carbon Fiber Recycling, LLC (CFR), sued its member, Timothy Spahn, seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and expulsion, alleging breaches of duty and misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding it lacked jurisdiction and venue due to arbitration and forum selection clauses in the LLC's operating agreement, and that CFR failed to state a claim. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims based on the arbitration provision, deferring arbitrability to the arbitrator. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of no jurisdiction or venue for temporary injunctive relief, determining that Tennessee law governs the operating agreement and the forum selection clause for injunctive relief was permissive, allowing CFR to seek a temporary restraining order in the Claiborne County Chancery Court. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the TRO.

Arbitration AgreementForum Selection ClauseInjunctive ReliefTrade Secrets MisappropriationLLC Operating AgreementChoice of LawContract InterpretationJudicial ExpulsionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 1,571 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