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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 14-16-00495-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2016

in Re Tom Thomas, Dan Sheehan and Marc Culp, Individually and as Successor to the Interest of Thomas, Sheehan & Culp, L.L.P

Relators Tom Thomas, Dan Sheehan, and Marc Culp, in their capacity as successors to the law firm Thomas Sheehan & Culp, LLP, initiated legal action against Legacy Trust Company, N.A., which serves as the court-appointed Receiver for the Article IV Trust. The core of their dispute revolves around the collection of a contingent fee. Initially filed in Dallas County, the lawsuit was subsequently transferred to Harris County Probate Court Number Two. Following this transfer, the Relators filed a Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings to circumvent discovery obligations, a motion that was granted on July 8, 2016. Legacy Trust Company, acting as the Real Party in Interest, has since filed a Motion to Reconsider the Order Granting this Emergency Stay, contending that the stay merely prolongs the litigation, unduly prejudices both Legacy and the trust's beneficiaries, and lacks compelling justification. Legacy asserts the necessity of ongoing discovery for the case's resolution and proposes that any concerns regarding the waiver of the Relators' plea in abatement could be addressed through a Rule 11 agreement. The motion urges the court to deny the Emergency Stay upon reconsideration.

Emergency StayMotion to ReconsiderProbate LawFiduciary DutyDiscovery DisputeAttorney FeesTrust LawReceiverAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
58
Case No. 09-06-569 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Facility Insurance Corp., a Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool v. Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal involving Facility Insurance Corp., as Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool (Appellant), and Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd. (Appellees). The parties jointly requested the Court to vacate the judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the cause for the entry of a new judgment, in accordance with their reached agreement. The Court, finding the motion compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), granted the request. As a result, the judgment of the trial court was vacated without delving into the merits of the case, and the matter was sent back to the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, for further proceedings in line with the parties' settlement agreement. All costs incurred were assessed against the respective parties.

TexasCourt of AppealsVacatedRemandedSettlement AgreementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureMemorandum OpinionTrial Court JudgmentJoint Motion
References
0
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Crutchfield

Richard Rodriguez appeals a summary judgment rendered in favor of P & H Transportation and Milton Crutchfield. Rodriguez, an employee injured while working as a forklift driver, contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on statute of limitations. He argued that he substituted as the real party in interest or that his amended pleading related back to the original petition filed by ALEA North American Insurance Company, the worker's compensation insurer. The court found that Crutchfield was never served in the original lawsuit, and Rodriguez failed to demonstrate due diligence in serving him. Furthermore, ALEA's claims against P & H Transportation were dismissed with prejudice, and Rodriguez's attempt to substitute as the real party in interest and file an amended petition occurred after the dismissal and after the statute of limitations had run, meaning there was no pending lawsuit for his claims to relate back to. The court overruled Rodriguez's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDue DiligenceService of ProcessReal Party in InterestRelation Back DoctrineWorker's Compensation ClaimPersonal InjuryDismissal with PrejudiceSubrogation
References
9
Case No. 01A01-9506-CV-00255
Regular Panel Decision

Vooys v. Turner

The case concerns an appeal by the Husband challenging the trial court's award of post-judgment interest to the Wife on $185,000. These funds were deposited by the Husband with the court clerk as the purchase price for the marital residence, which had been awarded to the Wife. During the initial appeal of the divorce decree, Husband appealed the award of the house and successfully moved to stay execution of the judgment without bond, requesting the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account. After the initial judgment was affirmed, Wife sought post-judgment interest. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court held that a party depositing funds into court does not avoid statutory post-judgment interest unless the payment is an unconditional satisfaction of the judgment, especially when the depositor appeals and obtains a stay, thus depriving the other party of the funds' use.

Post-judgment interestDivorceAppellate reviewFunds deposited in courtStay of executionMarital propertyAlimony in solidoStatutory interpretationRule 67.03Rule 67.04
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1990

Long v. Mattingly

This case, an appeal from a motor vehicle collision damages action, focuses on the determination of interest due to plaintiffs Geneva I. Long and Raymond C. Long. Following jury verdicts and subsequent remittiturs, the Appellate Court further reduced the awards to $50,000 and $10,000 respectively. The defendants appealed the trial court's decision regarding post-judgment interest, arguing against its allowance from the original verdict date and claiming the appellate mandate lacked instructions. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, clarifying that remittiturs are made by the successful party's waiver, not by court modification, thus entitling plaintiffs to statutory interest on their reduced judgments from the jury verdict date. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' right to 'interest on interest' and denied their request for damages due to frivolous appeal, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment with interest accruing from November 29, 1990.

Motor vehicle collisionPost-judgment interestRemittiturJury verdictAppellate reviewStatutory interestTennessee lawDamagesFrivolous appealWaiver
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Party Shuttle, LLC v. John Bilello

Appellant New York Party Shuttle, LLC (NYPS) appealed a judgment favoring appellee John Bilello for breaching a 2006 settlement agreement. The trial court found NYPS breached the agreement, awarding Bilello $39,900.04 plus prejudgment interest. NYPS contended it established affirmative defenses of mutual mistake, novation, and repudiation, and that the trial court erred in denying its motion for a continuance. Bilello cross-appealed the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding NYPS failed to prove its affirmative defenses or that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance. The court also held Bilello waived his cross-point regarding attorney's fees due to failure to file a notice of appeal.

Breach of ContractSettlement AgreementMutual MistakeNovationRepudiationAffirmative DefensesMotion for ContinuanceAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
42
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 7,894 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