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

Communications Workers v. SBC Disability Income Plan

This case addresses defendants' motions to dismiss the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) as a party-plaintiff. CWA and Rene Anzaldua initiated the lawsuit to challenge the denial of Mr. Anzaldua's long-term disability benefits under the SBC Disability Income Plan, citing violations of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Defendants argued that CWA lacked standing, as ERISA limits plaintiffs to 'participants,' 'beneficiaries,' or 'fiduciaries,' none of which apply to CWA. The court analyzed statutory definitions and rejected CWA's claims of derivative or associational standing, highlighting the necessity of individual member participation for benefit determination. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Anzaldua adequately represented the union's interests. Consequently, the motions to dismiss CWA as a party-plaintiff were granted.

ERISAStanding to SueLabor UnionsDisability BenefitsMotion to DismissStatutory ConstructionEmployee BenefitsLong-Term DisabilityAssociational StandingFederal Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2007

In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.

The case concerns Debtor Adelphia Communications Corp.'s objection to a $44.7 million claim by Lucent Technologies, Inc. Lucent sought to hold Adelphia liable for debts of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. under Delaware's Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, specifically Section 17-303, alleging de facto general partnership liability. Adelphia argued Lucent's actual knowledge of its limited partner status should defeat the claim. The Court ruled that Section 17-303(a) prioritizes the limited partner's conduct in determining a third party's reasonable belief, making the third party's actual knowledge of limited partner status irrelevant. Citing material factual disputes regarding Adelphia's conduct, the Court denied Adelphia's motion for summary judgment on Lucent's Section 17-303, alter ego, and other equitable claims, scheduling the Section 17-303 claim for the first stage of trial.

Limited Partnership LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionDelaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership ActSection 17-303De Facto General PartnerPartnership ControlVeil PiercingEquitable RemediesBreach of Contract ClaimBankruptcy Proceedings
References
41
Case No. 03-09-00122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Carl T. Wibbenmeyer v. TechTerra Communications, Inc. Christian Behier And Adella Almazan-Seabolt

Carl T. Wibbenmeyer appealed a district court judgment that awarded attorney's fees to appellees TechTerra Communications, Inc., Christian Behier, and Adella Almazan-Seabolt. Wibbenmeyer contended there was no statutory or contractual basis for the attorney's fees. The appeals court agreed, finding that neither Chapter 38 of the civil practice and remedies code nor the shareholders' agreement's attorney's fee provision applied. The court reasoned that a plaintiff's voluntary nonsuit does not confer 'prevailing party' status on a defendant for the purpose of attorney's fee recovery under the contract, as it does not result in a judicially sanctioned material alteration of the legal relationship between the parties. Consequently, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees.

Contractual DisputeAttorney's FeesShareholders' AgreementPrevailing PartyNonsuitAppellate ReviewCorporate GovernanceTexas LawStatutory InterpretationCivil Procedure
References
39
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 02-17-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2017

Lantek Communications, Inc. v. Hamilton Peck

This case concerns a breach of contract and fraud dispute stemming from a settlement agreement between Lantek Communications, Inc. (and related entities) and Hamilton Peck. Lantek, initially seeking declaratory judgment on the interpretation of their settlement agreement, faced Peck's counterclaims alleging a failure to pay the full amount due for a Phase 3 subcontract. The core disagreement revolves around whether Peck was owed 10% of a partial funding amount or the entire Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the original scope of work. The trial court ultimately ruled in favor of Hamilton Peck on the breach of contract claim, denying Lantek's summary judgment and granting Peck's, while also granting Lantek Parties' summary judgment on Peck's fraud counterclaims, leading to this appeal.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentSettlement AgreementFraud ClaimsAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationGuaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)Construction IndustryShareholder Dispute
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mango v. Communications Workers, Local 1105

The plaintiffs, members of the Communications Workers of America, Local 1105, filed an action to compel the Union to hold a special meeting regarding election procedures, including the use of the American Arbitration Association and candidate-designated election committee members. After an initial motion for injunctive relief led the Union to concede some demands, a second motion concerning membership lists was denied due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for an award of attorney's fees under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 412. The Court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, granted the motion, finding the plaintiffs to be a prevailing party. However, specific portions of the requested fees were reduced due to reasons such as unreasonableness of hours spent on certain tasks (e.g., preparing subpoenas) and insufficient descriptions of services rendered in the time records.

Attorney's FeesLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActUnion ElectionsInjunctive ReliefPrevailing PartyReasonableness of FeesDocumentation of ServicesUnion Membership ListsDue ProcessLabor Law
References
5
Case No. 03-12-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08007
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2016

Matter of Geo-Group Communications, Inc. v. Jaina Sys. Network, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied a motion by Jaina Systems Network, Inc. to vacate an arbitrator's award and granted a petition by Geo-Group Communications, Inc. to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, deeming the appeal from the order as an appeal from the subsequent judgment. The court determined that CPLR article 75, New York law, was applicable to the dispute as per the parties' contract, not the Federal Arbitration Act. It was found that Jaina failed to demonstrate any grounds for vacating the award under CPLR 7511 (b), emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards. The court also upheld the arbitrator's reliance on an email acknowledging debt, concluding it was not part of settlement negotiations and thus admissible.

Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewContract LawCPLR Article 75Vacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardDebt AcknowledgmentSettlement NegotiationsJudicial DeferenceCommercial Dispute
References
5
Case No. 03-99-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

Shamrock Communications, Inc. D/B/A KJFK and Bill Simonson v. Debby Wilie

Debby Wilie sued Shamrock Communications, Inc. d/b/a/ KJFK and Bill Simonson for defamation and invasion of privacy following a radio broadcast discussing alleged events from her private birthday party. The jury found both defendants liable, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, Shamrock raised eight points of error, including claims regarding insufficient evidence for malice and mental anguish, defective jury questions, and erroneous admission of hearsay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on malice and mental anguish, and no reversible error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

DefamationInvasion of PrivacyRadio BroadcastMaliceExemplary DamagesJury InstructionsMental AnguishHearsayAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 6,173 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