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

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. 01-17-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2022

Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark Ritter SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing 1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 2, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing 3, Ltd. El Al v. Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan 2001 Irrevocable Trust

This appellate opinion addresses a dispute within the Gilbreath family business, involving appeals from a trial court's amended final judgment on various claims. The case originated from conflicts after the patriarch's death, leading to allegations of financial mismanagement and an involuntary commitment proceeding against Lisa R. Gilbreath Horan. Appellants challenged judgments on malicious prosecution, defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The appellate court partly affirmed, reversed, and remanded the judgment, notably finding that Lisa lacked standing for certain derivative claims, reversing the jury's finding of oppression, and modifying injunctive relief. The case also involves remands for reconsideration of attorney's fees and the issue of judicial expulsion.

Malicious ProsecutionDefamationBreach of Fiduciary DutyBusiness DisputesLimited PartnershipsLimited Liability CompaniesCorporate GovernanceShareholder RightsInvoluntary CommitmentAttorney's Fees
References
138
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1998

Friscia v. New Plan Realty Trust

Ramapo Sign Co. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The original order granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granted cross-motions for common-law indemnification against Ramapo. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, citing a factual question about the injured plaintiff's work. It also modified the indemnification grants to be conditional upon the plaintiffs' success in the main action, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision regarding indemnification. The appellate court found no evidence that United Retail or Delaware Valley Sign Corp. exercised control over the injured plaintiff's work.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyElevated Work SitesFactual QuestionVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cabrera v. A-To-Z Signs

Derek Cabrera was injured on September 18, 2012, while walking underneath a covered walkway at SUNY Purchase when a sign fell and struck him. He sued A-To-Z Signs, Inc., the installer, for negligence, alleging improper installation and use of an inadequate anchoring system. Due to sovereign immunity, Cabrera also filed a separate action against the State of New York (SUNY Purchase) in the Court of Claims. A-To-Z Signs, Inc. sought to have the jury apportion liability for Cabrera's injuries between itself and the State, citing CPLR 1601. Cabrera moved in limine to prevent this, arguing prejudice from the 'empty chair defense' as the State could not be joined in the Supreme Court action. The court, lacking Second Department precedent, followed the Third Department's reasoning in Artibee v Home Place Corp. The court ruled that A-To-Z Signs, Inc. could introduce evidence of the State's liability, and the jury would be charged on apportionment, with the State appearing on the verdict sheet, thereby denying Cabrera's motion in limine.

negligenceapportionment of liabilityCPLR 1601empty chair defensesovereign immunityState of New YorkCourt of Claimspersonal injurymotion in liminejoint tortfeasors
References
7
Case No. 06-18-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2019

Charles Duncan McMillan D/B/A Anthony Sign Company v. Kelly Shane Hearne

Kelly Shane Hearne filed a personal injury suit against his employer, Charles Duncan McMillan d/b/a Anthony Sign Company, alleging negligence after he fell from a ladder. McMillan, a nonsubscriber to the workers’ compensation system, appealed the jury's finding of liability and the awarded damages, disputing the sufficiency of evidence and the offset amount. Hearne cross-appealed concerning the damages offset. The appellate court affirmed the finding of negligence and ruled that McMillan's employee benefit plan payments were not subject to the collateral source rule, thus allowing an offset. However, the court modified the trial court's judgment to reflect a corrected offset amount, increasing Hearne's past damages award.

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerWorkers Compensation ExemptionLadder FallProximate CauseForeseeabilityDamages OffsetCollateral Source RuleEmployee Benefit Plan
References
55
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. 03-07-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2008

Texas Logos, L. P. v. Gregory R. Brinkmeyer, Individually Hori-Zone Concepts, L.L.C. Centerline Supply, Inc. Lonestar Logos & Signs, L.L.C. Media Choice, L.L.C. And Quorum Media Group, L.L.C.

Texas Logos, L.P., an unsuccessful bidder for a TxDOT logo sign contract, filed a second lawsuit against a former TxDOT engineer, his consulting company, the winning vendor, and its affiliates, along with a subcontractor. Texas Logos alleged a conspiracy to unlawfully skew the procurement process and asserted common-law tort claims for fraud, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with a business relationship, seeking monetary damages. The district court dismissed the suit for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, holding that the district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the common-law tort claims and that these claims did not constitute an impermissible judicial review of TxDOT's procurement decision.

Procurement fraudCivil conspiracyTortious interferenceGovernmental contractsSubject-matter jurisdictionOfficial immunityCommon-law claimsAppellate reviewTexas Department of TransportationBid rigging
References
35
Case No. WR 78,113-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Garza, Humberto

This document contains Applicant Humberto Garza's objections to the Convicting Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and its recommendation to deny habeas corpus relief. Garza seeks the withdrawal of the February 12, 2015 Order, the recusal of Judge Noe Gonzalez, and the assignment of a different judge or revised findings. The objections are rooted in concerns over alleged ex parte communications with the jury by the judge and bailiff, the court's adoption of the State's findings, and insufficient funding for case development. Additionally, Garza objects to the exclusion of expert reports diagnosing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and outlining its impact on his life.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusRecusal MotionJury MisconductEx Parte CommunicationJudicial ImpartialityFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderMitigation EvidenceCapital PunishmentDeath Penalty
References
76
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,664 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