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

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

The Glidden Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding CDNE, Inc. damages for defective paint and attorney's fees, while All Pro Services cross-appealed regarding Glidden's award. The primary dispute centered on interpreting the 1582 Agreement concerning reimbursement for remediation costs incurred due to failed paint. The appellate court found the term 'costs' ambiguous and upheld the trial court's decision that All Pro Services was entitled to reimbursement at a rate of $32.50 per hour, including overtime. The court also affirmed that Glidden had effectively disclaimed consequential damages and that the replacement paint was not provided free of charge. However, the court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Glidden's attorney's fees.

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
0
Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. 2022-01-0054
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Laura Estrella de Espinosa sought death benefits following the passing of her husband, Rodolfo Espinosa, who died from heatstroke while employed by Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC. The employer, being uninsured for workers’ compensation, did not appear at the hearing. Mrs. Espinosa testified regarding her husband’s work and the circumstances leading to his death. However, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing expert medical testimony establishing that her husband's death arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically that the work-related cause contributed more than fifty percent. Consequently, the Court denied the requested benefits, though it did tax the filing fee against Maestro’s Pro Services.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency
References
0
Case No. ADJ6621190 (MF)
Regular
Jan 18, 2019

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Deanna Carroll was previously declared a vexatious litigant in 2016, requiring pre-approval to file any requests with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In this decision, the WCAB reviewed a Petition for Removal for Cause filed by Carroll in propria persona on December 4, 2018. Finding no significant change in circumstances or newly discovered evidence since the prior determination, the WCAB declined to accept the petition for filing. Therefore, Carroll's petition was rejected as per the vexatious litigant pre-filing order.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removal for Causein pro pernew evidencechange in lawpresiding judgelicensed attorneydeclaration of readiness
References
0
Case No. 08-20-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Eduardo A. Jonson v. Long Duong and Remy Grousson

Eduardo A. Jonson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time amended petition and the dismissal of his lawsuit against Long Duong and Remy Grousson. Jonson, a pro se litigant, raised three issues on appeal: denial of his rights as a pro se litigant, the trial judge's failure to recuse herself, and the judges' failure to adequately perform their duties. The Court of Appeals found Jonson waived his first and third issues due to inadequate briefing. His second issue regarding recusal was also waived for not filing a timely motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and dissatisfaction with rulings does not establish bias for recusal.

Pro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPleading DefectsSpecial ExceptionsMotion to DismissRecusal MotionJudicial BiasWaiver of IssuesProcedural RulesBusiness Partnership Dispute
References
23
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,571 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