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

Newspapers, Inc. v. Love

A collision in Austin, Texas, involving Gerald Witt Love's truck and Otis Franklin's car, resulted in injuries to the Love family and the death of their son. The Loves sued Otis Franklin, Curren Eugene Cargile, and Newspapers, Inc., alleging Cargile, a newspaper distributor, was an employee and not an independent contractor, making Newspapers, Inc. liable under respondeat superior. A jury found in favor of the Loves, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed on appeal by Newspapers, Inc. The appellate court reviewed arguments concerning the employer-employee relationship, jury instructions, proximate cause, and the alleged excessiveness of damages awarded. The court found no reversible error and upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the judgment.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMaster-Servant RelationshipAgency LawProximate CauseForeseeabilityDamages
References
38
Case No. 13-15-00506-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2015

Scripps NP Operating, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company, Successor in Interest to Scripps Texas Newspapers, LP D/B/A Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the E.W. Scripps Company v. Terry Carter

This case is an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion for summary judgment in a libel lawsuit. Appellants Scripps NP Operating, LLC, and The E.W. Scripps Company are being sued by Appellee Terry Carter, former president and CEO of the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, over 25 articles published in 2008. The articles reported on alleged financial and management irregularities during Carter's tenure, including shifted funds and deferred salary, which led to a stated profit instead of a deficit. Appellants argue that the articles were not defamatory, were substantially true, constituted non-actionable opinion, or were privileged fair reports of judicial proceedings and public meetings, and were published without negligence or actual malice.

LibelDefamationAppellate LawSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentMedia LawJournalism StandardsFinancial IrregularitiesChamber of CommerceEmployment Dispute
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matthews v. Newspapers Inc.

Stanley B. Matthews sued Newspapers Incorporated for damages stemming from two newspaper articles published in July 1953, which he alleged were false and defamatory. The articles connected his business, the Texas Body Shop, and its employees to a "car wrecking ring" involved in insurance fraud. Matthews contended that these publications caused significant financial losses to his business and harmed his personal reputation. Although the trial court initially denied Matthews recovery, the appellate court reversed this decision. The higher court found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a jury trial on whether the articles targeted Matthews and his business, and if he suffered damages. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that Matthews' failure to file an assumed name certificate did not preclude his right to pursue the lawsuit.

DefamationLibelNewspaper LiabilityBusiness DamagesReputation DamagesAssumed Name CertificatePrivileged PublicationAppellate ReviewReversed and RemandedJury Question
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05238 [173 AD3d 1571]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Matter of Kriplin (Community Newspaper Group LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Jonathan Kriplin, a newspaper carrier for Community Newspaper Group LLC (now Community First Holdings, Inc. - CFHI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing deliveries. The Department of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge determined that Kriplin and other carriers were employees, making CFHI liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, citing substantial evidence of an employment relationship, consistent with prior cases involving CFHI and similar workers. The court dismissed CFHI's arguments regarding independent contractor status and First Amendment rights.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorNewspaper CarriersAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawFirst Amendment Rights
References
4
Case No. 73 Civ. 3058
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

This opinion and order addresses a long-standing civil rights action concerning alleged discrimination against minorities in the newspaper delivery industry by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU) and various publishers. The court reviews and affirms a determination by Administrator William S. Ellis regarding “Claim 186,” which involved violations of a 1974 Consent Decree, specifically concerning hiring procedures for Group III shapers at The New York Times. The Administrator found that the Times and NMDU violated the Settlement Agreement by unilaterally deviating from a 3/2 minority hiring ratio, implementing discriminatory application procedures, and engaging in intentional racial discrimination in offlist hiring and Group III list placement. The court also affirms the Administrator's conclusions that certain non-minority intervenors lacked standing and that back pay and attorneys' fees are appropriate remedies under the Settlement Agreement, which is deemed compliant with Title VII. The case is remanded to the Administrator for further evidentiary hearings to determine specific back pay amounts and the relative liability of The Times and the NMDU.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent DecreeTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationHiring PracticesUnion PracticesAdministrator ReviewBack PayAttorneys' Fees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) was indicted on a single count of enterprise corruption under Penal Law § 460.20, based on 81 pattern acts committed by individual union officers, members, or agents. The NMDU moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing insufficient evidence and incorrect Grand Jury instructions regarding the union's liability. The court found that while a labor union, as an unincorporated association, can be criminally liable under New York law, and enterprise corruption is an appropriate charge, the Grand Jury instructions were critically flawed. Specifically, the instructions failed to adequately define terms like 'actual participation,' 'actual authorization,' and 'ratification after actual knowledge.' Furthermore, the court determined that New York's common-law no-agency rule for unincorporated associations, as established in Martin v Curran, requires proof that every union member individually authorized or ratified the criminal acts, a more stringent standard than what was presented. The court also rejected the applicability of Labor Law § 807 (6) as a general standard for union criminal liability, as it is limited to injunctions during labor disputes, which was not the context for most of the alleged acts. Consequently, the indictment against the NMDU was dismissed, with leave for the prosecution to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Enterprise CorruptionLabor Union LiabilityGrand Jury InstructionsCriminal LawUnincorporated AssociationsPenal Law InterpretationVicarious LiabilityRacketeeringOrganized CrimeLabor Racketeering
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,202 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