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. 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
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Messing

The debtor, Patrick F. Messing, sought to exempt his $6,365.45 interest in an ERISA-qualified pension benefit plan established by his employer, J.B.F. Associates, Inc. He claimed the exemption under both Tennessee law (Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-104(b)) and federal law (11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A)). The trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to both claims. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the Tennessee law claim, finding the state statute preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the trustee's objection to the federal law claim, concluding that ERISA § 206(d)(1) establishes a cognizable federal exemption. Therefore, the debtor's claim of exemption was granted under federal law but denied under state law.

ERISABankruptcyExemptionPension PlanEmployee BenefitsFederal PreemptionAnti-AlienationChapter 7Debtor's RightsTrustee Objection
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Smith

Maurice K. Guinn, the Chapter 7 Trustee, objected to Norma Howard Smith's amended exemption claim of $10,000.00 from a National Service Life Insurance Policy. The Debtor sought exemption under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1970(g) and § 5301. The court ruled that § 1970(g) does not cover National Service Life Insurance, but found the proceeds exempt under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5301(a) from creditors' claims. Additionally, the court decided that the funds maintained their exempt status after being invested in a certificate of deposit. Consequently, the Trustee's objection was denied, upholding the Debtor's exemption claim.

BankruptcyExemption ClaimChapter 7National Service Life InsuranceVeterans' BenefitsStatutory ConstructionCreditor ClaimsCertificate of DepositLife Insurance ProceedsFederal Exemption Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luttrell

The Chapter 7 Trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to the Debtor's claim of exemption for $150,000 received under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The Debtor, widow of a Department of Energy employee, received these benefits due to her husband's occupational illness (lung cancer) as a 'covered employee' under EEOICPA. The Trustee argued that the Tennessee exemption statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(C)) applied only to the individual suffering the illness, not to a dependent. The court disagreed, finding that the EEOICPA benefits, like social security and veterans' benefits, vest in surviving spouses and fall within the scope of protections intended by the Tennessee General Assembly. Therefore, the court overruled the Trustee's objection, allowing the Debtor to exempt the entire $150,000.

BankruptcyExemptionChapter 7Occupational Illness Compensation Program ActEEOICPAEnergy EmployeesSurvivor BenefitsDisability BenefitsState ExemptionsFederal Exemptions
References
28
Case No. 05-91224
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McBride

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case where debtor Diane McBride claimed her ExxonMobil Savings Plan as exempt under Texas state law. The Trustee objected to the exemption of her after-tax contributions, amounting to $4,840.00. The Court analyzed whether ERISA-qualified savings plans, including after-tax contributions, are 'excluded' from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) due to an anti-alienation provision, or merely 'exempt' under state law. Citing Patterson v. Shumate, the Court concluded that the presence of an anti-alienation clause in an ERISA-qualified plan means the funds are excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Therefore, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection.

BankruptcyERISARetirement PlanAfter-Tax ContributionsExemptionExclusionAnti-alienation ProvisionSpendthrift TrustTexas Property CodeChapter 7
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,348 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