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

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

COLUMBUS MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC v. Thomas

Plaintiff Columbus Medical Services, LLC, a staffing agency, sued former employee therapists and competitor Liberty Healthcare Corporation for breach of non-compete covenants and tortious inducement to breach, respectively. Columbus had an exclusive contract to staff therapists at Arlington Developmental Center, which Liberty later won. The therapists, who had non-compete clauses, were hired by Liberty, leading to the lawsuit. The trial court initially found the non-compete covenants enforceable and Liberty liable for inducement, awarding damages. However, the appellate court reversed, concluding that despite Columbus having a legitimate business interest in preventing 'opportunistic disintermediation,' the covenants were unenforceable due to the severe economic hardship on the therapists and the adverse impact on the public interest, particularly the continuity of care for vulnerable patients at Arlington and the State's investment in their specialized training.

Non-compete covenantTortious inducementEmployment agreementStaffing agencyRestrictive covenantContinuity of carePublic interestEconomic hardshipOpportunistic disintermediationTherapists
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quantum Maintenance Corp. v. Mercy College

Quantum entered into a maintenance contract with Mercy College which included a non-compete clause preventing Mercy from employing Quantum's personnel for two years post-termination. After Mercy terminated the contract, Aramark took over the maintenance services and subsequently hired Quantum's former employees. Quantum filed a lawsuit against Aramark, alleging tortious interference with contract, claiming Aramark induced Mercy to breach the non-compete clause. Aramark sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing the contract only restricted Mercy from direct hiring and that it could not be held liable as an agent. The court denied Aramark's motion, determining that the term 'engage' in the contract could be interpreted broadly to encompass hiring through a third-party contractor and that Aramark's alleged actions might have been for its self-interest, negating its agency defense.

tortious interference with contractnon-compete clausecontract interpretationmotion to dismissagency relationshipbreach of contractmaintenance servicespersonnel clauseemployer-employee relationsthird-party liability
References
33
Case No. 11-23-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2024

Michael Boucher v. Warrior Crane Service, LLC

This is an accelerated appeal concerning the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Michael Boucher, a former employee, sought to compel arbitration of claims brought against him by his former employer, Warrior Crane Service, LLC, for alleged breaches of his employment agreement, including violations of non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Boucher argued that an arbitration clause in Warrior's employee handbook constituted a binding agreement. The trial court denied Boucher's motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the arbitration clause was not a binding contract due to explicit disclaimers in the employee handbook stating it was not a contract, and a lack of sufficient consideration, as Warrior could unilaterally modify the clause.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawContract DisputeJudicial EstoppelQuasi-EstoppelEmployee HandbookCovenant Not to CompeteNon-Solicitation ClauseContractual ConsiderationAppellate Procedure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2011

Alliantgroup, L.P. v. Feingold

This Memorandum and Order addresses Alliantgroup, L.P.'s lawsuit against its former employee, Jeffrey Feingold, for various claims including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and computer fraud. Alliantgroup alleged Feingold violated non-compete, non-solicitation, and nondisclosure provisions by joining a competitor and taking client information. The court previously issued a preliminary injunction, reforming the overbroad non-compete clause. In this decision, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Feingold on all claims except for the alleged failure to repay a $25,000 retention bonus, citing Alliantgroup's failure to present sufficient evidence for damages or to meet claim elements. The case is set for a status conference to address the sole remaining breach of contract claim.

Employment LawNon-Compete ClauseNon-SolicitationNon-Disclosure AgreementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyConversionTortious InterferenceComputer Fraud and Abuse Act
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American National Insurance Co. v. Cannon

Plaintiffs, former insurance agents Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, filed a class action against American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC). The plaintiffs alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection laws, specifically challenging non-compete provisions and advance payment repayment obligations in their agent agreements. The trial court certified two classes related to these claims. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reviewed the class certification order, determining whether common issues predominated over individual ones, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual determinations were necessary for the reasonableness of non-compete clauses and for assessing reliance on oral representations regarding advance payments. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the class certification requirements were not satisfied and reversed the trial court’s order, remanding the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealNon-Compete ClausesAgent AgreementsAdvance PaymentsDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 42Predominance of Individual IssuesFraud
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. 02-22-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

BioTE Medical, LLC v. John Carrozzella, MD, JCMD Medical Services, Inc., Dan Deneui, and Terri Deneui

This case addresses whether a contractual "residual benefit" clause, requiring a post-termination fee for using a competing treatment method, constitutes a covenant not to compete under Texas law. Appellant BioTE Medical, LLC, licensed a pellet-based bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) method. Appellee JCMD Medical Services, Inc., a former customer, terminated its agreement and began using a competitor's BHRT without paying the residual-benefit fee. BioTE Medical sued JCMD for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to JCMD, finding the clause unenforceable either as a noncompete or a violation of public policy. The appellate court reversed, holding that the residual-benefit clause is not a covenant not to compete as it does not restrict JCMD from competing with BioTE Medical, but rather from using a competitor's product. The court also declined to invalidate the clause on uncodified public policy grounds, deferring to the Legislature's policy determinations.

Contract lawCovenants Not to Compete ActResidual benefit clausePublic policyBioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT)Breach of contractSummary judgmentAppellate reviewTexas lawBusiness and Commerce Code
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 4,822 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