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
Jul 12, 2004

In re Rico D.

The mother appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Kings County, dated July 12, 2004. The order determined that she neglected Saka E-L. and derivatively neglected Rico D. and Dior F. The appeals court affirmed the order, finding that the child’s out-of-court statements, corroborated by a social worker’s observations and the child’s school and medical records, were sufficient to establish neglect. The court also upheld the finding of derivative neglect, citing the mother’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibility.

Child neglectDerivative neglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of child's statementsCredibility determinationParental responsibilityAppellate reviewOrder of dispositionKings County Family CourtOut-of-court statements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerardo Rico v. Judson Lofts, Ltd.

Gerardo Rico appealed a summary judgment in favor of Judson Lofts, Ltd. in his common law negligence suit, seeking recovery for workplace injuries. The central issue was whether Judson Lofts, Ltd. was protected by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, specifically debating if Judson Lofts, Ltd. was covered by a workers' compensation policy issued to 'Judson Lofts, LLC' by Nationwide Staff Leasing. The appellate court affirmed that Judson Lofts, Ltd. and Judson Lofts, LLC were the same entity. However, the court found the Service Agreement between Judson and Nationwide ambiguous regarding the sharing of employment responsibilities, such as direction, control, hiring, and firing, as mandated by the Staff Leasing Services Act. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings because Judson failed to conclusively establish its affirmative defense.

NegligenceWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCo-employer LiabilityContract AmbiguityTypographical ErrorAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 13-cv-4732 (NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

FirstBank Puerto Rico v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In re Lehman Bros.)

This appeal arises from the insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. FirstBank Puerto Rico challenged the sale of bonds it had posted as collateral to a Lehman entity for derivative transactions, which were subsequently sold to Barclays Capital Inc. The District Court affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's judgment, which granted summary judgment to Barclays. The court held that FirstBank lost its property interest in the bonds when Lehman Swaps rehypothecated them to Lehman Brokerage, and therefore, FirstBank had no right to reclaim them from Barclays, who purchased them in a bankruptcy sale. The court also affirmed the sanctions against FirstBank for violating the Bankruptcy Court’s anti-suit injunction.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsInsolvencyDerivative TransactionsCollateralRehypothecationRepo AgreementsAsset SaleAnti-Suit InjunctionSummary JudgmentContempt Order
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Enterprise Rent a Car Co. of Texas

Plaintiff Stephanie Jones sued Enterprise Rent a Car Company of Texas, Enterprise Leasing Company of Houston, and Enterprise Rent a Car Company, alleging wrongful termination, various RICO violations, sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Jones' RICO claims. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the RICO claims with prejudice. The Court held that Jones lacked standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because her injury (wrongful termination for refusing to participate in fraudulent schemes) was not proximately caused by the alleged RICO predicate acts, but by her employer's decision to fire her. Other claims remain intact.

RICO ActMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationRacketeering ActivityPredicate ActsHobbs Act ExtortionWire FraudMail FraudFinancial Institution FraudEmployee Standing
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1999

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The plaintiffs, two limousine companies and their owner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which dismissed their causes of action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and several employees. The plaintiffs had alleged retaliatory tax assessments and sought damages under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 USC § 1962 (RICO). The Supreme Court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on appeal, holding that the Department of Taxation was not a 'person' under federal statutes and not an 'enterprise' under RICO, and that the individual defendants had minimal involvement or lacked requisite fraudulent intent for RICO claims.

civil rightsRICOracketeeringtaxationretaliationdismissalappellate courtsovereign immunitystatutory interpretationenterprise liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathews v. PUERTO RICO MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph L. Mathews filed a complaint against Puerto Rico Maritime Management, Inc., alleging breach of contract and age discrimination after being denied employment as a "relief bo'sun." The federal age discrimination claim was dismissed as Mathews was over 70, falling outside the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's coverage. Mathews attempted to amend his complaint to satisfy diversity jurisdiction's monetary requirements, but the court ruled that jurisdiction must exist at the time of the initial filing. Although pendent jurisdiction over state law claims existed, the court declined to exercise it due to minimal discovery, complex state law issues, and no significant prejudice to the plaintiff regarding the statute of limitations. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Mathews to file a new action in either state or federal court.

Age DiscriminationBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionAmended ComplaintStatute of LimitationsEmployment LawMaritime EmploymentDismissal Without Prejudice
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Condos Bros. Construction Corp. v. Main Street America Assurance Co.

Condos Brothers Construction Corp. sued Main Street America Assurance Company alleging overpayment of workers' compensation insurance premiums due to miscategorization of employees, bringing claims under the civil RICO Act and for RICO conspiracy. The defendant moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion, dismissing both RICO claims with prejudice. It found the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a distinct RICO enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity with the required particularity under Rule 9(b), concluding that multiple acts of fraud against a single victim in one transaction do not constitute a RICO pattern. Leave to amend the complaint was denied, as the court deemed it a breach of contract action disguised as a federal RICO case.

Civil RICORICO ConspiracyMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance PremiumsFraudulent SchemeEnterprise DistinctnessPattern of Racketeering ActivityMail Fraud
References
31
Case No. 10-23-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Vincin Campise v. Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, & Roberto Rico

Vincin Campise appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, and Roberto Rico. Campise, acting pro se, had initially filed a petition alleging identity theft, fraud, credit-reporting violations, deceptive trade practices, and civil conspiracy related to his bank accounts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Campise failed to present sufficient summary-judgment evidence for any of his claims. Furthermore, the court noted that Campise's identity theft and credit-reporting claims, as pleaded, did not constitute viable civil causes of action under Texas law.

Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil ProcedureNo-Evidence MotionFraud ClaimIdentity Theft ClaimDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil Conspiracy
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 177 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