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. 12-07-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2008

Keith Wells, Andria (Medley) Stewart, Blanche Phillips and Carrie Sterling v. Claude Dotson, Jr. and Wife, Faye Dotson

This appeal addresses a trial court's summary judgment regarding a "Lease with Options to Purchase" contract involving deceased Mildred Snow's estate and Claude Dotson, Jr. The appellants, heirs of Mildred Snow, challenged the judgment on grounds including specific performance under the Texas Probate Code, statute of limitations, ratification of fraud, and Faye Dotson's standing. The appellate court found Faye Dotson lacked standing and dismissed her from the case. It also reversed the specific performance ruling based on the Probate Code and reversed the summary judgment regarding the limitations defense, remanding that issue for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Claude Dotson, Jr. on the ratification defense concerning the fraud in the inducement claim.

Contract DisputeReal PropertyEstate LawAppellate ReviewFraudWaiverEquitable RemediesLegal StandingDue ProcessTexas Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Rumore

Union members and plaintiff Lawrence Farkas brought an action against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, and its president Anthony Rumore. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful ratification of a collective bargaining agreement by the union and employer participation in the misconduct, under the LMRDA and LMRA. Plaintiff Farkas also claimed wrongful discharge by the employer and mishandling of his termination arbitration by the union. The court denied summary judgment for the LMRDA claims against the union regarding contract ratification but granted it for the LMRDA claim against Anthony Rumore. Summary judgment was also granted to Coca-Cola on the LMRA ratification claim. Furthermore, Farkas's individual claims for duty of fair representation against the union and breach of collective bargaining agreement against Coca-Cola were dismissed due to his failure to exhaust contractual remedies.

Labor LawLMRDALMRAUnion RightsCollective BargainingContract RatificationDuty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between four natural gas producers (Fortune Production Co., Tucker Drilling Co., Inc., Curtis Hankamer Corp., and John L. Cox) and their purchaser, Conoco Inc. The producers alleged fraudulent inducement into contracts due to misrepresentations about residue gas resale prices and unjust enrichment for unpaid field liquids. While a jury found fraud and unjust enrichment, it also found the producers had ratified their contracts. The Texas Supreme Court partly reversed a prior appellate decision, holding that certain fraud claims were foreclosed by ratification for periods without definite contracts, but not for definite-term contracts. However, the Court deemed the jury's fraud damage award legally insufficient, remanding those claims. For unjust enrichment, claims covered by express written contracts were precluded, leading to reversals for Fortune, Tucker, and part of Hankamer's claim, while John L. Cox's unjust enrichment award was affirmed. The case was ultimately reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Fraudulent inducementUnjust enrichmentNatural gas contractsContract ratificationDamages calculationLegal remediesOil and gas lawAppellate reviewQuasi-contractContract interpretation
References
20
Case No. 13-02-00385-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2004

Formosa Plastics Corporation, Usa v. Kajima International, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from the 135th District Court of Calhoun County, Texas, between Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA (Appellant) and Kajima International, Inc. (Appellee). The suit originated from claims of fraud, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and negligent misrepresentation related to construction contracts. This document is a dissenting opinion by Justice Castillo, disagreeing with the majority's decision to reverse and remand. The dissent addresses several key issues, including the reliability and "side-switching" conflict of interest regarding Kajima's expert witness (Hutchison), the trial court's exclusion of mitigation evidence, a partial summary judgment on the single-business-enterprise status of Formosa USA and Formosa Texas, and jury charge issues related to mitigation, ratification, and broad-form fraud questions. Justice Castillo concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion on these issues and would affirm the judgment awarding Kajima $15,432,123.45 in fraud damages. The majority, however, sustained Formosa's third issue (expert witness related), reversing and remanding the case.

fraudexpert witnessconflict of interestside-switchingreliabilitymitigationsingle business enterprisejury instructionscontract disputeconstruction law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Republic Ins. Co., Inc. v. Fuller

Chief Justice Cornelius dissents from the majority's decision to overturn the trial court's findings. The core of the dissent argues that the insurance company failed to prove Fuller ratified a fraudulent settlement of his worker's compensation claim. Fuller's acceptance of benefits, the dissent contends, was not an act of ratification because he lacked full knowledge of the fraud and did not intend to validate the fraudulent act. Instead, he was likely attempting to mitigate a situation he perceived as irreversible. The dissent stresses that equity should provide a remedy against such fraud, and setting aside the settlement would not unduly harm the insurance company, merely restoring the parties to their original positions before the fraudulent settlement.

Fraudulent SettlementWorkers' Compensation ClaimRatification DoctrineAcceptance of BenefitsMistake of LawEquitable ReliefDissenting OpinionTrial Court FindingsInsurance Company BurdenAttorney Misconduct
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bank of America, N.A. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P.

This case concerns a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement in McMullen County, Texas. The Bank of America, as a lessor, sought rescission of a ratification agreement, alleging it was fraudulently induced to sign by Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, L.P. and the Rutherfords, who allegedly misrepresented the lease's status after a cessation of production. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, applying defenses such as ratification, waiver, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of the alleged fraud, the applicability of equitable defenses, and the Appellees' claims of adverse possession. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

Oil and Gas LeaseMineral RightsLease TerminationFraudulent InducementContract RatificationWaiver (Legal Doctrine)Quasi-EstoppelAdverse PossessionSummary Judgment ReversalUnjust Enrichment
References
61
Case No. No. 91-16599-B
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Personnel Services, Inc.

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility ("Facility") sued Personnel Services, Inc. ("PSI"), an employee leasing company, alleging that PSI misrepresented its employer status to procure lower workers’ compensation insurance rates for its client companies. The trial court found PSI misrepresented its status but issued a take-nothing judgment, citing the affirmative defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the court examined whether the Facility had sufficient specific knowledge of PSI's fraud to bar recovery. The appellate court concluded that the Facility's general awareness of the staff leasing industry was insufficient to establish specific knowledge of PSI's misrepresentations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a determination of damages on the Facility’s fraud claim.

fraudworkers' compensation insuranceemployee leasingmisrepresentationexperience modifieraffirmative defenseswaiverratificationestoppelemployer status
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,345 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