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

Donovan v. Cunningham

The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor initiated this action against members of the Administrative Committee of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) of Metropolitan Contract Services, Inc. (MCS), alleging violations of ERISA. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed fiduciaries breached their duties by causing the ESOP to purchase MCS stock from Defendant Cunningham for more than adequate consideration and engaging in prohibited transactions. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants acted in good faith, reasonably relied on an independent appraisal, and that the stock was purchased for no more than adequate consideration. Consequently, all claims brought by the Department of Labor were dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The court also ordered the Department of Labor to pay the defendants' attorney's fees and costs, and awarded fees to Allied Bank of Texas against Defendant Cunningham.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanStock ValuationProhibited TransactionsAdequate ConsiderationIndemnification AgreementsAttorney's FeesClosely Held CorporationsDepartment of Labor Litigation
References
9
Case No. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1607
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2017

Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd.

This case addresses a property-tax dispute between Sebastian Cotton & Grain Ltd. and Willacy County Appraisal District (WCAD) concerning the ownership of grain inventory and associated tax liability. The Texas Supreme Court decided three legal issues: WCAD's authority under Property Tax Code section 25.25(b) to correct ownership on an appraisal roll, whether an agreement under section 1.111(e) may be voided by fraud, and Sebastian's entitlement to attorney's fees under section 42.29. The Court held that WCAD has statutory authority to correct ownership under section 25.25(b) if it doesn't increase the total tax liability for the property, and that a section 1.111(e) agreement can be voided by fraud. It further determined Sebastian is not entitled to attorney's fees, reversing the court of appeals' judgment and remanding for further ownership determination.

Property TaxAppraisal RollOwnership DisputeTax LiabilityStatutory InterpretationFraudulent InducementAttorney's FeesTexas Property Tax CodeSection 25.25(b)Section 1.111(e)
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barksdale v. Robinson

Darryll Barksdale filed an action against Morgan C. Robinson (and related entities) and Spirit Music Group (and affiliate) concerning copyright ownership and infringement of musical compositions 'Rockin It' and 'It's Magic.' Barksdale sought a declaration of sole ownership, which Robinson disputed, claiming co-authorship. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the claims were time-barred. The court converted the motion to summary judgment, subsequently granting it. It ruled that Barksdale's copyright ownership claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as he knew of Robinson's claims by August 1998 but filed suit in December 2001. Consequently, the infringement claims, contingent on sole ownership, also failed. The court dismissed the Lanham Act claims for merely reiterating copyright disputes and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, thereby dismissing the entire case.

CopyrightMusic IndustryStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCopyright InfringementCo-ownershipLanham ActEquitable EstoppelDismissalFederal Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. M2020-00886-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Mark Steven Meadows v. Sharon Kay Story

Father and son, members of a limited liability company, sought its judicial dissolution due to disagreements over asset ownership and capital accounts. A receiver was appointed to determine asset ownership, and the trial court approved the receiver's report. After a bench trial, the court found the father's capital account was less than his son's, excluding evidence related to a separate lawsuit and attorney testimony based on privilege. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error concerning the implied partnership issue, attorney-client privilege rulings, asset ownership, or capital account calculations.

LLC DissolutionCapital AccountsAsset OwnershipAppellate ReviewAttorney-Client PrivilegeReceiver's ReportImplied PartnershipTax ReturnsFamily Business DisputeChancery Court
References
31
Case No. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. 05-14-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

CRE8 International, LLC v. Elexis Rice

Elexis Rice obtained a money judgment against Gary Pilant and sought a turnover order for internet domain names and email addresses. Cre8 International, LLC, intervened, claiming ownership of these assets and opposing the turnover. The trial court issued the turnover order, leading Cre8 to appeal. The appellate court modified the order to remove the provision for the sale of a specific telephone number due to insufficient evidence of Pilant's ownership, but otherwise affirmed the order allowing the sale of domain names and email addresses. The court ruled that Cre8's voluntary intervention allowed the trial court to decide the ownership issue.

Texas Court of AppealsTurnover OrderJudgment EnforcementThird-Party InterventionProperty Ownership DisputeIntangible AssetsDomain NamesEmail AddressesAbuse of Discretion ReviewCreditor's Rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Meier v. Haviland Motors, Inc.

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 21, 1983, which denied benefits, ruling that his May 27, 1978 automobile accident did not arise out of or in the course of his employment with Haviland Motors, Inc. Claimant argued that a prior no-fault arbitration finding of Haviland’s vehicle ownership precluded the Board from revisiting the issue via collateral estoppel. However, the Board found the claimant’s testimony about driving the car for work incredible, noting he had never acted as a salesman and his last work entry was months before the accident, suggesting Haviland bought the vehicle for him. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a rational basis for its conclusion even if the ownership issue was considered precluded, as the core issue was whether the accident was work-related, not vehicle ownership.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCollateral EstoppelCredibility AssessmentVehicle Ownership DisputePart-time EmploymentAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Funes v. VILLATORO

The appellate court addressed a dispute between Ursula Marisol Funes and Mauricio Funes (appellants) and Ernesto Antonio Villatoro (appellee) concerning the ownership of trade names "Buenos Dias El Salvador" and "Festival Guanaco," and claims of tortious interference. The initial dispute arose from an advertising disagreement for an El Salvadoran festival, leading the Funeses to register the names Villatoro claimed to own and send a cease-and-desist letter. Villatoro sued, alleging libel, tortious interference, and seeking declaratory judgment on trade name ownership. While a jury initially sided with Villatoro, the appellate court reversed several key findings due to insufficient evidence regarding trade name ownership, tortious interference, and lost profits. Consequently, the court reversed the declaratory relief and permanent injunction granted to Villatoro and remanded the issue of attorney's fees.

Trade NamesSecondary MeaningTortious InterferenceLost ProfitsDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewRadio Show
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 241 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