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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

L'Oreal, successor to Matrix, moved to hold Quality King Distributors, Inc., Glenn Nussdorf, and non-parties Ruth Nussdorf, Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc., and GSN Trucking Corp. in civil contempt for violating a 1990 injunction. The injunction prohibited the sale of 'professional use only' Matrix products. L'Oreal alleged sales via Quality King's website and Pro's Choice's distribution. The court found that factual issues remained regarding whether violations occurred, whether they were de minimus, inadvertent, or promptly cured, and if the 1990 Defendants failed to exercise reasonable diligence. Similar factual uncertainties precluded a finding of successor or aider and abettor liability for the non-parties. Therefore, the court denied L'Oreal's motions for civil contempt and expedited discovery, ordering the parties to proceed to discovery for a trial on the merits.

Civil ContemptInjunction EnforcementTrademark InfringementProduct DiversionSuccessor LiabilityAider and Abettor LiabilityLaches DefenseExpedited DiscoveryCorporate Spin-offProfessional Products
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1985

Sprague v. International Business Machines Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Orange County Insulation Corp., a third-party defendant, against an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order had granted International Business Machines Corp.'s, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, motion to compel further responses to a notice for discovery and inspection. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied the motion, ruling that the workers' compensation carrier's claim file for the plaintiff in the underlying action was protected as material prepared for litigation. The court emphasized that the requesting party failed to demonstrate that the material could not be duplicated or that its withholding would lead to injustice. Additionally, the court found the request for the entire file overly broad and noted that the notice for discovery should have been served directly upon the non-party carrier.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewPrivileged InformationWork Product DoctrineCPLRThird-Party DiscoveryMotion to CompelOverly Broad DiscoveryWorkers' Compensation Claim FileLitigation Preparation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Notaro v. Koch

The plaintiffs (James Notaro, George Longworth, and Pearse O’Callaghan), members of the Liberal Party, sued Edward Koch, Mayor of New York City and a gubernatorial candidate, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They claimed Koch threatened to fire Liberal Party members from state payroll if elected Governor and sought a permanent injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery to depose Koch within 30 days. The court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a strong probability of success on the merits, a connection between expedited discovery and avoiding injury, or that their potential injury outweighed the defendant's burden. The court also noted weaknesses in their legal arguments, including prematurity and lack of state action, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing them to refile with a stronger case.

Political AffiliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechExpedited DiscoveryCivil RightsIrreparable InjuryPreliminary InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)Constitutional LawGubernatorial Election
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

Hernandez v. Opera Owners, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03098 [171 AD3d 1236]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2019

Shusterich v. Kleinman

Patricia Shusterich, the injured plaintiff, and her husband commenced an action against Aaron and Tispora Kleinman after she tripped on a raised sidewalk. The Kleinmans, as third-party plaintiffs, then sued David Young Park, an adjacent property owner, for contribution and indemnification, alleging he performed negligent sidewalk repair work. The plaintiffs also asserted a direct claim against Park. Park moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to maintain the area as it didn't abut his property, and was exempt from statutory liability due to owning a single-family home. He also contended the work was done by an independent contractor without his request or payment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Park's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, finding that Park established a prima facie case for non-liability and the opposing parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySidewalk DefectSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewProperty Owner LiabilityContributionIndemnificationTrip and Fall
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,910 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