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. 2-04-233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2005

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Surety Bank, N.A. Individually and D/B/A Surety Premium Finance

Appellant Texas Mutual Insurance Company challenged a provision in a temporary injunction obtained by Appellee Surety Bank, N.A., alleging it constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The temporary injunction prohibited Texas Mutual from communicating or implying to insurance agents or customers that Surety Bank was in financial trouble or unfit to finance insurance premiums. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas in Fort Worth held that the challenged provision was unconstitutional under article one, section eight of the Texas Constitution, finding it to be an overly broad prior restraint on speech and not the least restrictive means to address the alleged harm. Consequently, the court modified the trial court's temporary injunction by deleting the offending provision and affirmed the injunction as modified.

Prior RestraintFreedom of SpeechTexas ConstitutionFirst AmendmentTemporary InjunctionCommercial SpeechBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceAppellate ReviewConstitutional Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Surety Bank, N.A.

This case involves an accelerated, interlocutory appeal filed by Texas Mutual Insurance Company against Surety Bank, N.A. Texas Mutual challenged a provision in a temporary injunction obtained by Surety Bank, which prohibited Texas Mutual from communicating or implying that Surety Bank was in financial trouble or unfit to finance insurance premiums. Texas Mutual argued that this provision constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech under the Texas Constitution. The appellate court agreed, finding the provision overly broad and not the least restrictive means to prevent harm, emphasizing that even defamatory speech is generally protected against prior restraint in Texas. Consequently, the court modified the trial court's temporary injunction by deleting the unconstitutional provision and, as modified, affirmed the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionPrior Restraint on SpeechTexas Constitution Article I Section 8Freedom of SpeechCommercial SpeechBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceUnconstitutional ProvisionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03158 [238 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Matter of Jefferies LLC v. IsZo Capital LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment confirming an arbitration award of $1,045,250 in favor of Jefferies LLC against IsZo Capital LP. IsZo Capital sought to vacate the award, arguing that arbitrators exceeded their power by violating federal bankruptcy court orders confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plans and that the award was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected this, finding 11 USC § 1141 (a) inapplicable as neither party was bound by its provisions. The court also rejected IsZo Capital's claim that the arbitration panel's order to remove website materials constituted a prior restraint on free speech, as it enforced a contractual agreement prohibiting the use of Jefferies LLC's name or logo without consent. The court concluded that enforcing such agreements does not violate public policy against prior restraint. Furthermore, IsZo Capital's challenge to the legal fee award was not preserved for appellate review.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardArbitrator's PowersFederal Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 Reorganization PlansPreemptionFirst Amendment RightsPrior RestraintContractual AgreementsLegal Fees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutherland v. City of New York

Norrel Sutherland, a dock builder, was injured on a job site while operating a defective winch motor for Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., his employer. He subsequently filed actions against the City of New York, its departments, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Pile Foundation, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law, Jones Act, and LHWCA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Pile under LHWCA and Jones Act, and some Labor Law claims against the City, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its prior determinations. Sutherland and the City appealed. This appellate court dismisses several appeals and cross-appeals, upholds the dismissal of Jones Act and Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, and modifies the prior order to grant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. The court extensively discusses the "dual capacity" employer liability under LHWCA, affirming that Pile's alleged negligence related to employer functions, not vessel owner functions, thus granting Pile immunity. The final decision is to modify and affirm the prior orders.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act ClaimsLabor Law ClaimsDual Capacity DoctrineVessel Owner NegligenceEmployer ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site SafetyDefective EquipmentMaritime Worker Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Claim of Ostuni v. Town of Ramapo

Claimant appealed from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed July 22, 2002, which denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of a prior decision. The prior decision had ruled that claimant did not sustain a work-related injury, citing insufficient credible evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, finding that the Board fully considered all evidence and no new, previously unavailable evidence was offered to warrant altering its decision. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the Board’s September 2001 decision that claimant’s injuries were not compensable, as her recurring lower back pain stemmed from injuries predating or following the alleged November 1990 incident, rather than the incident itself. The court also upheld the Board's rejection of contrary testimony as not credible.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryWork-Related InjuryReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Good v. Town of Brutus

A claimant, employed as a court clerk since 2002, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. She was awarded a 25% schedule loss of use of the left hand. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sought apportionment of liability with her two most recent prior employers under Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding no medical evidence of the condition arising from prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, stating that despite the claimant experiencing symptoms previously and an independent medical examiner suggesting apportionment, there was no objective medical proof that she contracted the condition while working for a previous employer. The court emphasized that the focus for apportionment is whether the claimant contracted the occupational disease during that specific employment.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Prior EmployersMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminerSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re George Green and Garlan Green

The provided legal text is an Appellants' Brief filed by George Green and Garlan Green against the Port of Call Homeowners Association and its directors. They are appealing an order from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Llano County, Texas, to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. The Appellants challenge the trial court's order, which granted injunctive relief, extended the period for record production, and imposed sanctions against them. They argue that the order was issued with inadequate notice, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, and improperly modified a prior order without sufficient evidence. The original dispute arose from the Appellants' attempts to review HOA financial records due to alleged misuse of funds.

Appellate LawCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefSanctionsFree SpeechPrior RestraintHomeowners AssociationProperty RightsDiscovery DisputesDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Rescue Workers, Inc. v. Smith

The case involves a petition by American Rescue Workers, Inc. against the Mayor of North Tonawanda, seeking permits for its agents, Loretta E. Ackerson and Dewitt Ackerson, to solicit funds and disseminate religious literature. Prior applications were denied, sometimes for stated reasons like false statements, and later without reason. The court analyzed a city ordinance that lacked clear standards for permit denial, granting broad discretion to the Mayor. Citing landmark Supreme Court cases such as Cantwell v. Connecticut and Kunz v. New York, the court determined that the ordinance constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment rights due to the absence of appropriate guiding standards for the administrative official. Consequently, the court found the Mayor's denial exceeded municipal police powers and ordered the immediate issuance of the requested permits.

Solicitation permitsFirst Amendment rightsReligious freedomPrior restraintMunicipal ordinancesPolice powerConstitutional lawFreedom of speechAdministrative discretionLicensing standards
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spraker v. Watts

The case involves an appeal by the mother from a Family Court order, entered August 12, 2005, which granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order. The father sought physical custody, alleging the mother's unstable living conditions, frequent moves, and inadequate care for their 13-year-old son, who has ADHD and a learning disability. The Family Court awarded physical custody to the father, finding the mother's lifestyle detrimental and the father's disciplinary approach more effective, while also imposing conditions on the father regarding alcohol consumption. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Family Court's determination was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, upholding the modification based on a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests.

Custody disputeparental responsibilitieschild welfarejudicial reviewfamily lawappellate decisionspecial needs childparental alcohol userelocation issueshome environment stability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,360 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