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
Mar 26, 1998

Kahn v. Seely

Former law partners Robert I. Kahn and Claxton B. Seely appealed the trial court's judgment concerning the dissolution and termination of their law partnership. The central issue was whether a partner is entitled to compensation for post-dissolution services in winding up partnership affairs under the 1914 Texas Uniform Partnership Act. The court held that the 1914 Act does not permit such compensation, reversing the trial court's decision on this point. Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence to support Kahn's claim for lost profit damages due to Seely's alleged breach of fiduciary duty, rendering judgment against Kahn on this claim. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, including the 60/40 division of firm profits.

Partnership DissolutionLaw Firm PartnershipWinding Up AffairsPost-Dissolution CompensationTexas Uniform Partnership ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyLost Profits DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewContract Construction
References
27
Case No. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06024 [153 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2017

In Re Dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc.

The case involves the judicial dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc., a closely-held corporation. Petitioners, Vladimir Chomiak, Leon Chomiak, and Leonora Chomiak, sought dissolution alleging oppressive conduct and looting of corporate assets by respondents, Tatiana Chomiak Kasian, Tamara L. Chomiak, and the estate of Leo Chomiak. Supreme Court granted the dissolution, finding that respondents engaged in actions such as awarding themselves unjustified bonuses, issuing undervalued stock to dilute petitioners' ownership, and attempting to force petitioners to sell their shares. The court also found that respondents looted corporate assets through unsubstantiated loans. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vladimir Chomiak had standing, the proceeding was not time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations for equitable breach of fiduciary duty claims, and there was ample evidence to support findings of oppressive actions and looting of corporate assets.

corporate dissolutionminority shareholder oppressionbreach of fiduciary dutycorporate lootingdilution of sharesstatute of limitationsstandingclosely-held corporationappellate reviewfiduciary relationship
References
20
Case No. 03-02-00475-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Hays County, Texas v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership

This case involves an appeal by Hays County against a district court judgment favoring the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The partnership had sought an injunction and attorney's fees, alleging that Hays County violated the Open Meetings Act, the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan submitted to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding regarding the Open Meetings Act and the 'open courts' provision of the Texas Constitution, dissolving the injunction. However, it affirmed that Hays County violated the Texas Constitution (Art. V, § 18) and the Local Government Code due to an invalid action by a single commissioner and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Texas Court of AppealsOpen Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeDeclaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanInjunction
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Raul Cantu No. 3 Family Ltd. Partnership

The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment concerning a dispute between the Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc., and the Raul S. Cantu No. 3 Family Limited Partnership. The core issue was the Council's right to levy fees on unit owners who rented outside the designated rent pool and to prohibit the use of independent leasing agents. The trial court had ruled these actions unenforceable and awarded damages for tortious interference. However, the appellate court found that the Council's fees and prohibitions were reasonable and justified under the condominium's Declaration and Bylaws, and that they had a legal right to interfere with the Partnership's contracts. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the damages awarded to the Partnership and rendered judgment in favor of the Council for unpaid assessments and attorney fees.

Condominium LawProperty RightsRental ManagementHomeowners AssociationTortious InterferenceContract LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentUnpaid AssessmentsAttorney Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hays County v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership

Hays County appealed a district court's judgment that found it violated the Open Meetings Act, Texas Constitution, and Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan. The district court had granted an injunction and attorney's fees to the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The appellate court reversed the findings regarding the Open Meetings Act and the Texas Constitution's 'open courts' provision, and dissolved the injunction. However, it affirmed that a single commissioner's alteration of the plan was invalid as an unauthorized act and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership.

Open Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeUniform Declaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanAbuse of DiscretionStanding
References
31
Case No. Index No. 300908/17 Appeal No. 3021 Case No. 2023-04605
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Robles-Martinez v. Partnership 92 West, L.P.

Plaintiff Joshua Robles-Martinez, a delivery worker, sustained injuries when a sidewalk hatch door struck his head while making a delivery to Columbus Gourmet Food. Plaintiff alleged a dangerous condition stemming from a building facade modification that prevented the door from fully opening. Defendant landlord Partnership 92 West, L.P.'s motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims for contractual indemnification against tenant Columbus Gourmet Food, was denied. Partnership failed to demonstrate the modification was tenant-created or a nonstructural defect, and its indemnification clause did not cover its own potential negligence. Additionally, third-party defendant Fischer Foods of New York, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning plaintiff's 'grave injury' claim, which involved a traumatic brain injury and alleged permanent unemployability. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationLandlord LiabilityTenant LiabilityPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDelivery Worker InjurySidewalk Hatch DoorFacade ModificationGrave Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. 07-09-0392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Betty Domingo v. Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz and Sharla Pierce, and LGroup, a Texas General Partnership

Betty Domingo appealed the trial court's judgment, which denied her breach of contract claim against Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz, Sharla Pierce, and LGroup. Domingo argued errors in jury instructions and the denial of directed verdicts regarding partnership existence, damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the jury instruction refusal as the 'essential element' of the contract was a fact issue. The court also held that a partnership was not established as a matter of law, precluding directed verdicts on damages and attorney's fees.

breach of contractlottery pooloral agreementpartnership lawjury instructionsdirected verdictcontract damagesattorney's feesappellate reviewTexas Business Organizations Code
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunnagan v. Watson

This case involves an appeal between James R. Dunnagan and Joseph Earl Watson, two members of the limited partnership “Parker County’s Squaw Creek Downs, L.P.” The dispute arose from disagreements after the partnership failed to secure a horse racetrack license. Watson initially sued Dunnagan for breach of fiduciary duties and sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, while Dunnagan filed a cross-petition against Watson for breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found Watson breached his fiduciary duties, causing damages of $459,645.69 to the limited partnership, and also found that Dunnagan's actions made it impracticable for the limited partnership to continue, leading to its dissolution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings regarding Watson's breach of fiduciary duties and the judicial dissolution of the partnership.

Limited PartnershipFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJudicial DissolutionPartnership DisputeAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTrial Court JudgmentCorporate GovernanceEquitable Relief
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 303 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