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. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2003

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA

This case, referred to as the 'Tittle action,' involves class action claims brought by Enron employees who participated in three pension benefit plans (Savings Plan, ESOP, and Cash Balance Plan). Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties under ERISA, RICO violations, and Texas common law claims (negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy) against Enron, its officers, directors, administrative committees, Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins, and several investment banks. The court grants motions to dismiss for most RICO and common law claims, citing preemption by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), as the underlying conduct is actionable as securities fraud. However, the court largely denies motions to dismiss for the ERISA claims, allowing them to proceed, finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to imprudent investments in Enron stock, plan lockdowns, and failure to diversify plan assets. The decision outlines the various duties and liabilities of fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, and non-fiduciaries under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyCo-Fiduciary LiabilityDirected TrusteeSecurities Litigation Reform ActSLUSA PreemptionClass ActionPension PlansESOP401(k) Plan
References
247
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. City of Jellico

The case consolidated appeals from Jerry Wayne Lynch and David A. Lozano, challenging the constitutionality of several provisions within the Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 2004. Specifically, the plaintiffs contested the mandatory benefit review conference, the multiplier used for permanent partial disability benefits, and the reliance on the AMA Guides for anatomical impairment. The trial judge had previously ruled these provisions unconstitutional, citing violations of due process, separation of powers, open courts, and equal protection, as well as the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Handicap Act. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, affirming the constitutionality of all challenged provisions. The Court found that these statutory elements serve legitimate state interests in ensuring uniformity, predictability, and cost efficiency within the workers' compensation system, and do not infringe upon the stated constitutional rights or acts.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSeparation of PowersOpen Courts DoctrineBenefit Review ConferencePermanent Partial DisabilityAMA GuidesMultiplier Provisions
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1999

Ruiz v. Johnson

This Memorandum Opinion addresses motions to terminate the court's jurisdiction over an ongoing civil action concerning conditions in Texas prisons, Ruiz v. Estelle, initiated in 1972. The court rules that the termination provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) are unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers and due process clauses, and thus cannot be applied retroactively to the 1992 Final Judgment. Alternatively, the court finds systemic constitutional violations in three key areas: administrative segregation, inmate safety, and excessive force. Conditions in administrative segregation units (Levels II and III) are found to inflict cruel and unusual psychological suffering and inappropriately house mentally ill inmates. Prison officials are deemed deliberately indifferent to widespread inmate-on-inmate violence, sexual assault, and extortion, failing to provide reasonable protection. A pervasive culture of malicious and sadistic excessive force by correctional officers is also found unconstitutional. However, while medical and psychiatric care are deemed inadequate and often negligent, they do not meet the "deliberate indifference" standard required for an Eighth Amendment violation under current law. The court concludes that despite significant policy improvements, the Texas prison system's practices continue to violate constitutional standards in critical areas, ensuring continued judicial oversight.

Prison ConditionsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSeparation of PowersDue ProcessPrison Litigation Reform ActInmate SafetyExcessive ForceAdministrative SegregationMental Health Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Key Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case is a securities-fraud putative class action brought by Lead Plaintiff Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters against Key Energy Services, Inc. and several of its officers. The plaintiff alleged material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Key's financial condition and business prospects in Mexico and Russia, leading to inflated stock prices, in violation of various sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that the Consolidated Amended Complaint failed to allege falsity with particularity, establish a strong inference of scienter, and demonstrate loss causation as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motions to dismiss, finding the complaint deficient in providing specific factual allegations, relying too heavily on vague confidential witness statements, and improperly using group pleading to infer scienter. The plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint to address these pleading deficiencies.

Securities fraudClass actionFCPA violationsInternal controlsMisrepresentationsOmissionsScienterLoss causationMotions to dismissPSLRA
References
106
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. Docket No. 26
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2007

In Re DRDGOLD Ltd. Securities Litigation

This consolidated class action was brought against DRDGOLD Limited (DRD), its chairman Mark Wellesley-Wood, and its CEO-CFO Ian Louis Murray, by various individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, representing investors who purchased DRD securities between October 23, 2003, and February 24, 2005, alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the restructuring of DRD's North West Operations (NWO) in South Africa, engaged in false and misleading financial reporting, and that Wellesley-Wood conducted insider stock sales at artificially inflated prices. DRD moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted DRD's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with sufficient particularity under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, although it found the loss causation allegations to be sufficient to survive dismissal. Leave to replead was granted to the plaintiffs.

Securities FraudClass ActionExchange Act of 1934PSLRAScienterPleading StandardsMaterial MisrepresentationInsider TradingGold Mining CompanyFinancial Reporting
References
39
Case No. ADJ6853853
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KYB FUGFUGOSH vs. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that San Quentin State Prison committed serious and willful misconduct. The applicant, an inmate kitchen worker, sustained a right shoulder injury on June 18, 2008, after being ordered to work despite presenting medical documentation of his injury and post-surgical condition. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's finding that prison officials' failure to acknowledge and act on the applicant's medical limitations constituted a reckless disregard for his safety, proximately causing his injury. The employer's arguments regarding perjured testimony and newly discovered evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Quentin State PrisonState Compensation Insurance Fundserious and willful misconductadmitted injurykitchen workerarthroscopic acromioplastyrotator cuff tearsfailure to reportinmate request for interview
References
1
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 7,981 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