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

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co.

This case addresses whether a party entitled to indemnification for damages to an injured employee can recover indemnity under the Public Utilities Act from an employer covered by the Workers’ Compensation statute. Tommy Eugene Miller, an employee of Eller Outdoor Advertising, was electrocuted by a power line owned by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P). Miller's family received workers' compensation benefits from Eller and later settled a wrongful death action against HL&P. HL&P then sued Eller for indemnification, arguing Eller violated the Public Utilities Act. The trial court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Statute precluded HL&P's suit. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the specific indemnification provision of the later-enacted Public Utilities Act should control over the more general Workers' Compensation Act, allowing for harmonization of the statutes. The case was remanded to determine the merits of HL&P's indemnification claim.

IndemnificationPublic Utilities ActWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationHigh Voltage LinesElectrocutionWrongful DeathExclusive RemedyThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motise v. America Online, Inc.

Michael V. Motise initiated this action against America Online, Inc. in March 2004, alleging unlawful disclosure of his screen name. America Online moved to dismiss or transfer the case, citing a forum selection clause in its Member Agreement mandating disputes be heard in Virginia. The court examined whether Motise, as a user accessing his step-father's account, was bound by the clause despite lacking direct notice. The court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause through a 'derivative rights theory,' establishing that Motise's access was contingent on his step-father's acceptance of the terms. Consequently, the case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Forum selection clauseDerivative rightsConstructive noticeTerms of serviceTransfer of venueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInternet lawUser agreementContract enforceabilityJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evolution Online Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V.

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, involves claims of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and quantum meruit. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint, citing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in the Netherlands. The Second Circuit remanded to clarify whether a contract with such a clause existed and if it should be enforced, or if dismissal was appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds. The District Court affirmed that a binding contract with a mandatory Netherlands forum-selection clause existed and should be enforced due to significant partial performance and mutual intent to be bound, despite the lack of a signed document. The court also determined that even without the clause, the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, as the Netherlands offers an adequate alternative forum and is more convenient based on public and private interest factors, including the location of proof and the applicability of Dutch law.

Contract disputeCopyright infringementQuantum meruitForum-selection clauseForum non conveniensInternational litigationDutch lawNew York lawSecond Circuit remandBreach of contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esser v. Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp.

Plaintiff Peter Esser sued Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp. (RASCO) for FMLA interference and retaliation. Esser took medical leave for carpal tunnel surgery, during which he attended an Elton John concert and allegedly misused his employee ID to access restricted areas. RASCO terminated Esser, citing breach of security and lack of candor during questioning. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the interference claim, finding Esser was granted FMLA leave, but denied it on the retaliation claim. The court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether RASCO exhibited animus towards Esser for taking FMLA leave and whether it deviated from its termination policy.

FMLAFamily Medical Leave ActRetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductTerminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkplace PolicyDue Process
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 1990

Claim of Harris v. Grey Advertising, Inc.

Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits following an injury during her employment with Grey Advertising, Inc. The employer appealed earlier Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decisions, seeking further record development on the claimant's disability. After the claimant settled a third-party negligence action for $150,000, the employer sought a credit for this settlement against future compensation payments, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ decisions, indicating that further development was needed regarding the third-party settlement. The employer then appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal as premature, ruling that the determination of the credit amount was a question of fact not yet resolved by the Board, thus rendering the Board's decision interlocutory and non-appealable.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsThird-Party Settlement CreditInterlocutory AppealPremature AppealRecord DevelopmentDisability AssessmentCompensation AwardEmployer AppealAppellate JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Law § 29
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavin v. McKelvey

The plaintiffs, Chalam Advertising, Inc., Nathan A. Chavin, and Lanny Lambert, sued defendants TMP Worldwide, Inc. and Andrew J. McKelvey over claims arising from the relinquishment of stock conversion rights. Plaintiffs alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act, breach of contract, common law fraud, and breach of duty, arguing they were fraudulently induced to give up conversion rights for promised compensation that was never delivered. The court dismissed the federal securities fraud claims, finding plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on oral representations given the clear disclaimer and merger clause in the Letter Agreement. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire case.

Securities FraudStock Conversion RightsBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudBreach of DutyMotion to DismissJustifiable RelianceMerger ClauseFraud on the MarketSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. RQ-0006-GA
Regular Panel Decision

Opinion No.

The opinion from the Texas Attorney General addresses whether the Howard County Commissioners Court can utilize filing fees from the county law library fund (Local Government Code §323.023) to finance online legal research services. Specifically, it evaluates a proposal from the Howard County Bar Association to provide Westlaw access to the general public, jail inmates, judges, and public and private attorneys. A primary concern was the potential for impermissible subsidization of private attorneys and a violation of Article III, Section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the unconstitutional grant of public funds for private purposes. The Attorney General concluded that the relevant statute permits such expenditures for the law library and judges, and any incidental benefit to private attorneys does not render the expenditure unconstitutional, provided there is a predominant public purpose and adequate public control. Ultimately, the decision rests with the commissioners court's discretion to determine if the expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose and is adequately controlled.

Legal Research ServicesCounty Law Library FundPublic Funds ExpenditureConstitutional LimitationsTexas Local Government CodeHoward County Commissioners CourtAttorney General OpinionPublic Purpose DoctrineIncidental Private BenefitContract Law
References
23
Case No. ADJ8290334
Regular
May 23, 2016

MARTHA GALVEZ vs. HEY BABY OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, rescinding a WCJ's order that continued a lien trial to obtain documents from the anti-fraud unit regarding a potential Labor Code section 4615 stay. The Board found that with the Department of Industrial Relations now publishing relevant documents online, discovery should be reopened for the parties to review these materials. This action aims to resolve the section 4615 issue efficiently and obviate the need for the WCJ's direct involvement with the anti-fraud unit. If a dispute persists after reviewing the online documents, parties can seek a new hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAnti-Fraud UnitLabor Code Section 4615Due ProcessWCJDepartment of Industrial RelationsLien ClaimantStay of LienIndicted Provider
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CENTOCOR, INC. v. Hamilton

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. Hamilton claimed Centocor engaged in fraudulent direct-to-consumer advertising that misleadingly emphasized benefits and omitted warnings. A jury found in favor of Hamilton, awarding significant actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of fraud, recognizing an exception to the "learned intermediary" doctrine when manufacturers directly advertise fraudulently. However, the court reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages due to insufficient evidence. The judgment was modified to reflect this change.

Product LiabilityFraudDirect-to-Consumer AdvertisingLearned Intermediary DoctrineDrug-Induced LupusRemicadeMedical MalpracticePunitive DamagesCausationWarning Defect
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 122 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