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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. 2011-01184 (consolidated with 2011-13741)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Houston

The City of Houston, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order granting a new trial. The underlying action involved a consolidated personal injury lawsuit by plaintiffs LaShonda Rochelle and Mattie Etubom against the City, stemming from a 2009 collision with a police patrol car. After a jury found the City 60% responsible but also upheld an affirmative defense, the trial court granted a new trial based on alleged City misconduct (spoliation, limine order violation) and purportedly newly-discovered evidence. Applying the standard set by In re Toyota Motor Sales, the appellate court reviewed the trial court's stated reasons. It concluded that the trial court abused its discretion, as the justifications for a new trial were either not legally supported, waived by the plaintiffs, or constituted harmless error. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its new trial order and enter judgment on the original jury verdict.

Mandamus ReviewNew Trial OrderAbuse of DiscretionSpoliation of EvidenceLimine Order ViolationNewly Discovered EvidenceJury Verdict ReinstatementTexas Civil Procedure Rule 320Governmental Immunity DefensePolice Misconduct
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2005

In re the Claim of Abramson

Claimant, an accountant placed by Staff Plus, Inc. at Goldman Sachs, was denied extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Staff Plus was his base period employer, making him ineligible because Staff Plus was not a provider of services to an air carrier. An initial appeal led to remittal for further record development regarding the relationship between Staff Plus and the claimant. After re-evaluation, the Board reiterated its decision, finding a clear employment relationship between claimant and Staff Plus, which was supported by the evidence. The court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the denial of TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsTEUC-ATemporary Employment AgencyEmployment RelationshipBase Period EmployerDisplaced Airline-Related WorkersEligibility for BenefitsAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. 03-04-00684-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2005

in Re State of Texas

The dissenting opinion, authored by Justice David Puryear, addresses the majority's decision to deny a petition for writ of mandamus in *In re State of Texas*. Justice Puryear argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attorney's fees to Anderson Courier. He contends that Anderson Courier waived the claim by failing to raise it in the original appeal and that their subsequent motions for 'supplemental relief' were procedurally flawed and lacked merit under the UDJA. Furthermore, an agreement between the county attorney and Anderson Courier to refrain from enforcing the statute rendered any request for injunctive relief moot, thereby eliminating the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. The dissent concludes that the trial court's award of attorney's fees was void and that mandamus relief should have been granted.

MandamusJurisdictionAttorney's FeesAppellate MandateDeclaratory Judgment ActSupplemental ReliefWaiverMootnessVoid JudgmentTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 14-12-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2012

in Re Lambert Adumekwe

Relator Lambert Adumekwe filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, seeking to compel New Hampshire Insurance Company regarding an administrative workers' compensation decision. Adumekwe was appealing a final summary judgment favoring the insurer, which had denied his claim for a broken tooth and jaw. The Court dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating that mandamus against a non-judge party is only permissible if necessary to enforce the court's jurisdiction, which was not applicable here. The Court also noted that Adumekwe should have filed a reply brief instead of a mandamus petition. Consequently, the Court ordered the mandamus petition to be re-filed as Adumekwe's reply brief in his pending appeal (case number 14-12-00169-CV).

Workers' CompensationMandamusAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPro SeReply BriefInsurance CarrierAdministrative DecisionTexas
References
4
Case No. M2024-01256-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2025

In Re Estate of Ruby Smith

This appeal concerns a custodian's sale of real property for minor children under the Tennessee Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. The custodian, James E. Wilson, Jr., sold the property without a formal appraisal, real estate agent, or open market listing, relying instead on a county assessor's appraisal. The minors' mother, Morgan Miller, filed suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the custodian, James E. Wilson, Jr., regarding the sale price and method. The trial court dismissed the mother's claim, finding no breach of duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that the custodian acted reasonably, considering factors like perceived urgency, desire to avoid fees, and the property's condition.

Uniform Transfers to Minors ActFiduciary DutyReal Property SaleCustodianProbate CourtAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProperty AppraisalBreach of DutyMinor Children
References
33
Case No. 2-02-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2003

in Re Matthew T. Hinterlong

Matthew T. Hinterlong, the relator, sought mandamus relief against a trial court's order denying his motion to compel discovery of a student informant's identity. The informant's tip led to Hinterlong's expulsion from Arlington Martin High School (AMHS) for alleged alcohol possession. Hinterlong contended that the crime stoppers privilege did not apply or was unconstitutional as applied. The Court of Appeals determined that while the AMHS program qualified as a crime stoppers organization and the tip was privileged, the absolute application of the privilege in this civil case violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision, especially given Hinterlong's acquittal and prima facie evidence of being 'set up'. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the tipster's information under Texas Rule of Evidence 508 to balance anonymity with Hinterlong's right to redress.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeCrime Stoppers PrivilegeOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionZero Tolerance PolicyStudent ExpulsionMalicious ProsecutionDefamationNegligence
References
49
Case No. No. E2003-01832-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

In Re: C.D.C., Jr.

The case "In re C.D.C., JR." concerns the termination of parental rights of Christopher Dean Collins, Sr. to his son, C.D.C., Jr. The Juvenile Court for Greene County terminated the father's rights based on statutory grounds of willful non-support, non-visitation, and the child's best interests. The father appealed, arguing he was unaware of his son's location. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the lower court's decision, citing the father's lack of credibility, failure to maintain contact or provide support despite legal obligations, and general indifference. The court emphasized that the child was thriving in a prospective adoptive foster home, making termination in his best interest, and found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and parental unfitness.

Termination of Parental RightsChild AbandonmentChild SupportParental UnfitnessBest Interest of ChildAppellate CourtJuvenile LawVisitation RightsDue ProcessCredibility Assessment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,413 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