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

Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado

This interlocutory appeal concerned a media defendant's (Freedom Communications, Inc.) motion for summary judgment in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Coronado) alleged that Freedom published a political advertisement falsely accusing them of child abuse. The trial court judge, Abel Limas, denied Freedom's motion. Subsequently, Limas pleaded guilty to federal racketeering, admitting he accepted a bribe for his ruling in this case, making him constitutionally disqualified. Due to the judge's disqualification, his order was void, thus depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction to address the merits. The court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial DisqualificationJudicial CorruptionVoid OrderSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionBriberyRacketeeringDefamationInvasion of Privacy
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'ROURKE v. Smithsonian Institution Press

Kevin O'Rourke filed a copyright infringement action against the Smithsonian Institution Press and The Smithsonian Institution, alleging they infringed his book "Currier and Ives: The Irish in America" by publishing "Currier and Ives: America Imagined." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims. O'Rourke contended that the defendants were independent entities not falling under "the United States" for the statute's purposes. The Court, however, found that "the United States" in Section 1498(b) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the Smithsonian Institution and its press, referencing previous rulings where the Smithsonian was considered part of the federal government. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, closing the case.

Copyright InfringementSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Copyright ActCourt of Federal ClaimsSmithsonian InstitutionUnited StatesSovereign ImmunityMotion to Dismiss28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)Tucker Act
References
5
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melnick v. Press

This case involves a diversity action between plaintiffs Geraldine Melnick and Lonnie Sehwimmer, and defendant Cary Press, stemming from the termination of Melnick's and Press's quasi-marital relationship. Plaintiffs sought the partition of several properties, the imposition of a constructive trust on another, and damages for defendant's alleged wrongful conversion of funds. The Court ordered the partition and equal division of proceeds for the properties at 15 Ohio Avenue and Delray Beach, Florida. However, it denied claims for reimbursement of carrying costs, found no evidence of ouster from 15 Ohio, and rejected conversion claims against Press regarding insurance proceeds and home equity line of credit funds. Additionally, the plaintiffs' request for a constructive trust on the 16 Nevada Avenue property was denied, consequently rendering the claim for punitive damages moot.

Partition ActionReal PropertyJoint TenancyTenancy in CommonConstructive TrustUnjust EnrichmentConversion of FundsQuasi-marital RelationshipProperty DisputeEquitable Remedies
References
44
Case No. 09 Civ. 8139
Regular Panel Decision

Lopresti v. Pace Press, Inc.

The plaintiff, Patrick LoPresti, as Trustee of the ALA-Lithographic Industry Pension Plan, brought an action against Pace Press, Inc. and other defendants, seeking to recover withdrawal liability under ERISA. The plaintiff alleged that a principal purpose of the asset sale transaction between Pace Press and DG3 North America, Inc. was to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that evasion of withdrawal liability was a principal purpose of the sale or its structure. The Court concluded that the primary motivation for the sale was to avert Pace Press's bankruptcy and the Principals' personal guaranty liabilities, and that the transaction's structure served legitimate business objectives. Consequently, the Court denied the plaintiff's claim to recover withdrawal liability.

ERISA Withdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlanAsset Purchase AgreementEvade or Avoid LiabilityCorporate BankruptcyPersonal GuarantiesSecured CreditorsUnsecured Creditors PoolBusiness ValuationEmployment Agreements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Honaker v. Kingsport Press, Inc.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Kingsport Press, the employer, concerning a chancellor's order to pay a portion of employee Almeda Honaker's attorney's fees for temporary total disability benefits. Honaker sustained a back injury, and while her worker's compensation claim was initially denied by Kingsport Press, she received benefits under the employer's self-insured accident and sickness program. The chancellor later found the injury compensable, awarded worker's compensation benefits, and credited Kingsport Press for prior payments, but crucially ordered the employer to cover 20% of Honaker's attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed this specific order, citing T.C.A. § 50-6-226(a), which stipulates that attorney fees are to be paid by the party employing the attorney. Consequently, the award of worker's compensation benefits was affirmed, but the employer's obligation to pay attorney fees was overturned, with costs of appeal assigned to Honaker.

Worker's CompensationAttorney FeesTemporary Total DisabilityAccident and Sickness PlanEmployer LiabilitySelf-Insured PlanStatutory InterpretationChancellor's DecreeAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verson Allsteel Press Co. v. Carrier Corp. & Carrier Air Conditioning

Verson Allsteel Press Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Carrier Corporation and Carrier Air Conditioning Company. The case involves an employee, Steven Paul Gandy, who was injured operating a press brake manufactured by Verson. Gandy received worker's compensation and subsequently sued Verson, securing a judgment. Verson then sought indemnification from Carrier based on terms in the press brake's production order. Carrier argued the indemnification was barred by Texas Civil Statutes due to a lack of an express written agreement. The appellate court found that the indemnity clauses did constitute an express written agreement, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for trial on the merits.

IndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentContract LawProduct LiabilityTexas Civil StatutesExpress AgreementReversed and RemandedPress Brake InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins Ex Rel. Hawkins v. D & J Press Co.

This is a product liability action brought by Yvonne Hawkins, on behalf of her injured husband, Dillard N. Hawkins, against D & J Press Company, Inc., the manufacturer of an industrial briquette press. Dillard Hawkins sustained severe injuries, including amputation and brain damage, when his legs were caught in the press while at work on July 23, 1979. The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 1980. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by Tennessee's 10-year Products Liability Act (TCA § 29-28-103), which sets a limitation period from the date the product was first purchased for use (June 7, 1966). The Court considered constitutional challenges to the statute and arguments regarding the Workers' Compensation Act, but ultimately found the 10-year limitation valid and applicable. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Product LiabilityStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentTennessee LawIndustrial AccidentPersonal InjuryManufacturing DefectBriquette PressWorkers' CompensationDue Process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

In re Ruben R.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian and the Commissioner of Social Services against a Family Court decision that allowed press access to child abuse and neglect proceedings involving the surviving siblings of Elisa Izquierdo. The appellants argued that public dissemination of sensitive details would cause irreparable harm to the children, whose identities had already been widely publicized. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the potential trauma to the children, supported by psychological evidence, outweighed the press's interest in free access, especially given the prior media disclosures. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding children's emotional well-being and privacy in such sensitive proceedings.

Child Protective ProceedingsPress AccessCourtroom ClosurePrivacy Rights of ChildrenChildren's Emotional Well-beingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFirst AmendmentJudiciary LawPsychological Harm
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 213 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