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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Complete Auto Sales, Inc. (Complete) filed a motion to remand its case against defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) back to state court. The case originated from Complete seeking contribution/indemnity from LINA, its insurer, for claims made against Complete by an injured employee. LINA had removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption. While some claims were partially remanded earlier, Complete now argues that LINA's insurance policy is exempt from ERISA jurisdiction, citing a prior ruling where a similar LINA policy was found to be state-governed. The court agreed, finding the current policy similar and not preempted by ERISA, thus lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted, sending the case back to the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

ERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionState Law ClaimsInsurance Policy ExemptionFederal Question JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to RemandTexas LawFifth CircuitDistrict Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Christopher A. Eadie was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997 while working for Complete Company, Inc. He subsequently filed workers' compensation claims in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Complete and its insurer, Westfield Insurance Companies, moved for summary judgment in Tennessee, arguing Eadie was precluded by the election of remedies doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Eadie's active pursuit of his claim in South Carolina constituted a binding election of remedies, barring his Tennessee claim. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this finding, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Eadie's actions in South Carolina were sufficient affirmative acts to constitute a binding election of remedies.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesInterstate ClaimSummary JudgmentJurisdictionTennessee Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Workers' CompensationAffirmative ActForum ShoppingDouble Recovery

References

Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust

References

Case No. 04-14-00657-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 14, 2015

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust

References

Case No. 12-033-24-AN-272-A

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 03, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The applicant, Dave Greer, seeks a new trial, alleging numerous constitutional violations during his conviction. Key arguments include the denial of his due process right to a complete trial record due to missing off-the-record discussions and jury notes, which hindered his post-conviction collateral attack. He also claims a Sixth Amendment violation for being denied the right to cross-examine critical witnesses (Officer Ficke and a confidential informant). Furthermore, the applicant asserts prosecutorial misconduct, citing the use of false evidence, misstatements of law, improper jury arguments, and the commitment of jurors during voir dire. Finally, he argues ineffective assistance of counsel at both trial and appeal, highlighting a severe conflict of interest, failures to object to inadmissible evidence, and inadequate preservation of Fourth Amendment claims, all exacerbated by the trial court's failure to provide a complete record.

Ineffective assistance of counselProsecutorial misconductDue processSixth AmendmentFair trialImpartial juryCross-examinationBrady violationHearsayConflict of interest

References

Case No. 01-06-00694-CV

Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. appealed a $155,000 jury verdict in favor of its employee, Ronald Burke, in a nonsubscriber negligence case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence and causation findings, and that the expert medical testimony was reliable. The court also upheld the exclusion of collateral source evidence regarding Burke's compensation for his injuries. Additionally, the court reviewed LMC's supersedeas bond, vacating a prior order and setting the bond at $74,868.02 based on LMC's determined net worth of $149,736.04. A separate appeal challenging the trial court's findings on the security issue was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Workplace InjuryNegligence ClaimNonsubscriber EmployerLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceCausation EvidenceExpert Medical TestimonyCollateral Source RuleSupersedeas BondNet Worth CalculationAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law

References

Case No. 05-15-00073-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 16, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This document is an 'Agreed Correction of Reporter’s Record' filed by Danyel Moffett, Appellant, and Vincent Toarmina, Appellee. The parties agree to correct the Reporter’s Record by including two exhibits, Def. Ex. 29 and Def. Ex. 30, which are Charles Vincent Toarmina’s Response to Request for Disclosure and Charles Vincent Toarmina’s First Supplemental Response to Request for Disclosure, respectively. These exhibits were admitted at trial but not included in the original record. The parties agree that these documents are true and correct copies and should be made part of the Reporter’s Record for all purposes.

Appellate ProcedureCorrection of RecordExhibitsDiscoveryTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProbate CourtEstate LawDisclosure RequestAppellate Court FilingAgreement of Parties

References

Case No. 02-21-00164-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 09, 2022

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Appellant Todd Gallaher, a political consultant, sued Appellee Denton Media Company, Inc. d/b/a Denton Record-Chronicle for defamation, alleging libelous statements in a series of articles. The articles detailed allegations of Gallaher's misconduct during the 2008 primary election, claiming he was "charged," "prosecuted," and "sentenced" for misrepresentation of identity. Gallaher also contended defamation regarding statements that he declined to comment for the articles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Newspaper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that some claims were time-barred, statements about charges were protected by the statutory defense of truth for public concern, and statements about declining comment were not defamatory.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code

References

Showing 1-10 of 5,411 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

ERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionState Law ClaimsInsurance Policy ExemptionFederal Question JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to RemandTexas LawFifth CircuitDistrict Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesInterstate ClaimSummary JudgmentJurisdictionTennessee Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Workers' CompensationAffirmative ActForum ShoppingDouble Recovery

References

Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust

References

Case No. 04-14-00657-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 14, 2015

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust

References

Case No. 12-033-24-AN-272-A

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 03, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Ineffective assistance of counselProsecutorial misconductDue processSixth AmendmentFair trialImpartial juryCross-examinationBrady violationHearsayConflict of interest

References

Case No. 01-06-00694-CV

Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law

References

Case No. 05-15-00073-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 16, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Appellate ProcedureCorrection of RecordExhibitsDiscoveryTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProbate CourtEstate LawDisclosure RequestAppellate Court FilingAgreement of Parties

References

Case No. 02-21-00164-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 09, 2022

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code

References

Showing 1-10 of 5,411 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.