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

Monopoli v. County of Nassau

Justice S. Miller dissents from the majority's decision to grant summary judgment to the County of Nassau. The case concerns plaintiff Barry Monopoli, who fell from his bicycle due to a tree stump on Merrick Road. An eyewitness testified seeing workers, believed to be from Nassau County, cut down the tree and later place traffic cones near the stump. Justice Miller argues that this eyewitness testimony creates a genuine issue of fact regarding the County's role in creating the dangerous condition, precluding summary judgment. Therefore, the dissent advocates for reversing the order and denying the County's motion.

Tree stump accidentBicycle fallDangerous conditionSummary judgmentEyewitness testimonyNassau CountyMunicipal liabilityDissenting opinionFactual disputePremises liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Field v. Trump

The case is a putative class action concerning a leveraged buy-out of Pay 'n Save Corporation. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, RICO, and state common law. Specifically, Count I claimed that an unlawful premium was paid to Stroum and Sloan during a tender offer, violating Section 14(d)(7) and Rule 10b-13. Count II alleged breach of fiduciary duty and non-disclosure under federal securities laws. Count III accused defendants of a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no tender offer in effect for Count I, that Count II failed to state a federal securities claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and that Count III did not sufficiently allege a "pattern" of racketeering activity as the acts constituted a single, non-ongoing scheme. Pendent state law claims were dismissed, and leave to replead was denied.

Federal Securities LawsRICOLeveraged Buy-OutTender OfferClass ActionMotion to DismissRule 10b-13Williams ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyRacketeering Activity
References
11
Case No. 25-BC03A-0001
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2025

In Re Storable, Inc.; RedNova Labs, Inc. (d/B/A storEDGE); SitelinkSoftware, LLC; Easy Storage Solutions, LLC; Bader Co.; And Property First Group, LP v. the State of Texas

SafeLease, a Texas-based startup, provides low-cost tenant insurance plans for self-storage facilities. To administer policies, SafeLease requires access to facility management software (FMS) systems used by its partners. Defendants (Storable, RedNova, SiteLink, Easy Storage, Bader Co., Property First Group) are affiliated companies that also offer FMS (storEDGE, SiteLink, Easy Storage Solutions) and compete directly with SafeLease in the tenant insurance market. Defendants hold a dominant market share (over 75%) in the FMS market. Defendants, after years of allowing SafeLease "authorized user" access to customer accounts on their FMS systems, abruptly blocked SafeLease's access in December 2024 and amplified these blocks in January 2025 after a temporary restraining order expired. SafeLease alleges that Defendants are leveraging their FMS monopoly to cripple SafeLease, force customers to switch to higher-cost insurance, and monopolize the tenant insurance market. They claim this anticompetitive conduct causes irreparable harm to SafeLease, its customers (over 275,000 tenants affected), and the industry. The case involves claims of attempted monopolization under the Texas Antitrust Act, tortious interference with existing contracts, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. SafeLease seeks injunctive relief to restore its access and prevent further harm.

AntitrustMonopolizationTortious InterferenceBusiness CourtSelf-Storage IndustryTenant InsuranceFacility Management Software (FMS)Trade SecretsDiscovery DisputeProtective Order
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lens Express, Inc. v. Ewald

Lens Express, Inc. and Managed Vision, Inc. appealed a summary judgment upholding the Texas Optometry Act against their challenges. They argued that the Act's requirements for physical prescriptions and prohibitions on preferred provider agreements created a monopoly and violated due process. The court applied a rational-relationship standard, finding the Act rationally related to a legitimate public health interest. The court also determined that the presence of numerous licensed optometrists negated claims of a monopoly. Additionally, the trial court's dismissal of a request for a declaratory judgment regarding agreements between Managed Vision and Texas optometrists was affirmed based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Texas Optometry ActSummary JudgmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMonopolyPrimary JurisdictionOptometry RegulationContact LensesMail-order SalesAdministrative Law
References
23
Case No. 03-94-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Lens Express, Inc. & Managed Vision, Inc. v. Lois Ewald, as Executive Director of the Texas Optometry Board Dan Morales, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of Texas And Texas Optometric Association, Inc.

Lens Express, Inc. and Managed Vision, Inc. appealed a summary judgment that upheld the Texas Optometry Act and related Board Rules. Appellants argued that the Act violated due process and equal protection by creating a monopoly and restricting their ability to dispense contact lenses by mail. They also contested the dismissal of their request for a declaratory judgment regarding agreements with Texas optometrists. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, applying the rational-relationship standard of review. The court found that the Act served a legitimate public health interest, that no monopoly existed due to the numerous licensed optometrists, and that the administrative agency had primary jurisdiction over the agreements.

Optometry ActConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMonopoly ClaimsSummary Judgment AppealPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative Agency ReviewState RegulationPublic Health Interest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maisel v. Sigman

Plaintiffs, Maisel & Co., a manufacturing jobber, initiated an action against the Joint Board of Cloak, Skirt, Dress and Reefer Makers’ Union and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. They sought to invalidate a contract signed on July 5, 1923, alleging it was procured under duress and violated anti-monopoly and Penal Laws, besides lacking mutuality. The contract arose from a labor dispute and a strike after Maisel & Co. attempted to reorganize its business, leading to reduced in-house manufacturing and increased reliance on subcontractors. The court, presided over by Burr, J., meticulously reviewed the negotiations leading to the agreement and the subsequent actions of the plaintiffs, concluding that duress was not established. Furthermore, the court analyzed the contract's provisions against claims of illegality, finding that it did not create an illegal monopoly or violate labor laws, asserting workers' rights to combine and negotiate terms. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the agreement, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, and granted judgment in favor of the defendants.

Contract disputeLabor disputeUnion agreementDuress defenseCoercionAnti-monopoly lawPenal law violationRestraint of tradeCollective bargainingStrike action
References
15
Case No. 14-11-00034-CV; 14-11-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Nath v. Texas Children's Hospital

This case consolidates two appeals filed by Rahul K. Nath, M.D., challenging substantial attorney's fees awarded as sanctions to Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine. Nath argued the sanctions were improperly levied against him, untimely, and violated constitutional rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding ample evidence that Nath was personally involved in prosecuting groundless and bad-faith claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and declaratory judgment. The court noted Nath's improper use of discovery to leverage a financial settlement based on unproven allegations about a deceased doctor's health.

SanctionsAttorney's FeesAppealsCivil ProcedureDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDeclaratory JudgmentJudicial DiscretionBad Faith LitigationGroundless Claims
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiff, a metropolitan hospital authority, sued Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other defendants for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants conspired to manipulate the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) process to secure a monopoly for generic enoxaparin, leading to inflated prices. The Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling objections regarding venue and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. However, the Court sustained an objection regarding the indirect purchaser rule, dismissing Plaintiff's claims for damages as the 'cost-plus' exception did not apply due to the lack of a fixed-quantity contract. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, however, were allowed to proceed.

AntitrustSherman ActIndirect Purchaser RuleNoerr-Pennington DoctrineVenue TransferMonopolyEnoxaparinPharmaceuticalsPatent LawUSP Standards
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Primerica Corp.

Plaintiff's agency with National Benefit Life Insurance Company was terminated, leading to an antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as state law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found no concerted action under Sherman Act § 1 due to the corporate structure and dismissed the Clayton Act § 7 claim as inapplicable to this case. Furthermore, the Sherman Act § 2 monopolization claim failed as the defendant's 19% market share was insufficient to establish monopoly power. Consequently, the pendent state law claims for Donnelly Act violation and breach of contract were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActClayton ActMonopolyAttempted MonopolizationSummary JudgmentCorporate StructureWholly-Owned SubsidiaryMarket SharePendent Jurisdiction
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angamarca v. Da Ciro, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Angamarea, an undocumented immigrant, filed a lawsuit against Da Ciro, Inc. and its principal, Ciro Verde, alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After returning to his native Ecuador, Angamarea sought to provide deposition and trial testimony remotely. Defendant Da Ciro moved to dismiss the claims due to Angamarea's failure to appear in person. The Court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, denied the motion, ruling that Angamarea's immigration status constituted compelling circumstances for remote testimony. The decision emphasized that employers cannot leverage an employee's immigration status as a defense to FLSA claims, especially when the status was known at the time of employment.

Undocumented ImmigrantRemote DepositionRemote TestimonyWage and Hour LawsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSouthern District of New YorkDiscovery
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 32 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