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. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00795
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2018

Tishman Constr. Corp. v. United Hispanic Constr. Workers, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment against United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc. (UHCW) and nonparty David Rodriguez for attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The court found that appellants were in contempt for disobeying a negotiated stipulation and order regarding protest conditions, which prejudiced the plaintiffs' right to conduct business without disturbance. The court also properly exercised jurisdiction over David Rodriguez, president of UHCW, who was involved in the stipulation's negotiation, aware of its conditions, and personally violated the court's mandates. Appeals from prior orders were dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

ContemptStipulation ViolationAttorneys' FeesJurisdictionNonparty LiabilityAppellate ReviewCollective ActionProtest ConditionsJudicial OrderDamages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Block Coal & Coke Co. v. United Mine Workers

This dissenting opinion addresses a claim for unemployment compensation benefits by thousands of coal miners (United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19) against their employers, the Block Coal and Coke Company and other coal operators, for the period of April 1 to May 8, 1939. The core legal question is whether their unemployment stemmed from a 'labor dispute' under Tennessee law, which would disqualify them from benefits. The Commissioner of Labor initially granted benefits, reversed by the Board of Review, then reinstated by the Chancery Court. The coal operators appealed. Justice DeHaven dissents, arguing that the unemployment was due to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and ongoing negotiations, not an active labor dispute. He contends that deeming negotiations a dispute would undermine collective bargaining and that the statute requires a localized labor activity like a strike or lockout at the workplace. He concludes that the chancellor's decision to allow benefits should have been affirmed, implying the majority denied the benefits.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeCollective BargainingContract ExpirationStatutory InterpretationTennessee Unemployment Compensation LawWorkers' RightsEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate CourtDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07967 [155 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2017

Tishman Construction Corp. v. United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which found United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc. (UHCW) and nonparty David Rodriguez guilty of civil contempt. The contempt finding was due to their failure to adhere to a previously negotiated stipulation and court order entered on May 22, 2012, which outlined conditions for protests held by UHCW. As a result, UHCW was fined $1,000, Rodriguez $500, and attorney fees, costs, and disbursements were awarded. The court affirmed that the appellants clearly disobeyed an unequivocal mandate, thereby prejudicing the plaintiffs' business operations. Furthermore, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over David Rodriguez, president of UHCW, despite him not being personally served, given his active involvement in negotiating the stipulation and his personal violations of the court's mandates.

Civil ContemptStipulation ViolationCourt Order DisobedienceAppellate AffirmationJurisdiction over NonpartyCorporate Officer LiabilityFines and PenaltiesAttorney Fees AwardPrejudice to BusinessProtest Conditions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,156 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