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. 03-98-00334-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1999

David Brian Keep v. Kathryn Elizabeth Keep

This is an appeal regarding a Final Decree of Divorce between David Brian Keep and Kathryn Elizabeth Keep. The appellant, David Brian Keep, challenged the trial court's division of marital property, award of child support, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's characterization of Kathryn Keep's workers' compensation settlement as separate property and upheld the child support award of $3,000 per month. However, the court reversed the award of a 50% interest in the Plano, Texas, property to Kathryn Keep, as it was deemed David Keep's separate property. Additionally, the court reversed the reimbursement awarded to Kathryn Keep for community funds expended on three separate properties due to a lack of proof of enhancement and also reversed the $5,000 award for appellate attorney's fees. The remainder of the divorce decree was affirmed.

DivorceProperty DivisionChild SupportAttorney's FeesMarital EstateSeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyReimbursement ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

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
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pu v. Mitsopoulos (In re Mitsopoulos)

Richard Pu, the plaintiff, initiated an adversary proceeding against George Mitsopoulos, the debtor, seeking to deny his discharge under § 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiff alleged that the debtor failed to keep or preserve recorded information related to his pharmacy business, which closed before his bankruptcy filing. The court found the records produced by the debtor insufficient to ascertain his financial condition and business transactions. The debtor's justifications for the lack of records—accountant approval, belief that a defunct corporation had no record-keeping obligation, and destruction of records by a third party—were rejected as unreasonable. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's discharge under § 727(a)(3).

BankruptcyDischarge ObjectionRecord KeepingFinancial DisclosureDebtor ResponsibilityBusiness RecordsChapter 7Accountant RoleCorporate FinanceFabricated Tax Return
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D.D.G. General Contracting Corp. v. Hartnett

Petitioner, a public works contractor, faced a proceeding initiated by the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding underpayment of prevailing wages and benefits to its employees on a contract with the Department of Transportation. A Hearing Officer determined that petitioner failed to pay three employees properly, keep accurate records, and underpaid workers due to improper record-keeping, deeming the violations willful and imposing interest and a penalty. The court affirmed the use of engineer's summaries as evidence for underreported hours where petitioner's records were inadequate, and upheld findings for three specific employees and for overtime violations for two others. However, the court found a lack of substantial evidence for the amount of underpayments for eight employees due to DOL's inconsistent data utilization. Consequently, the determination was annulled, and the matter remitted for reassessment of underpaid wages and supplements, and a reconsideration of the imposed penalty.

Prevailing WageUnderpaymentPublic Works ContractRecord Keeping ViolationsLabor Law ViolationsWillful ViolationsCivil PenaltyInterestRemittalJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1994

Avila v. A. Sam & Sons

This case involved ten Haitian Creole farm workers who sued A. Sam and Sons Produce Company, Inc., Esau Sam, and Robert Sam for alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) during the 1987 tomato and cucumber harvest in Dunkirk, New York. The plaintiffs claimed various breaches concerning housing, disclosure, transportation, record-keeping, and the use of unregistered farm labor contractors. The court found that the defendants intentionally violated AWPA provisions related to housing, transportation, record-keeping, wage statements, and registration by, among other things, allowing workers to reside on premises without adequate safety standards and failing to maintain proper employment records. However, the court did not find the defendants liable for disclosure, false information, or working arrangement violations. Consequently, a judgment for $25,000.00 in statutory damages was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.

Migrant Agricultural Worker Protection Actfarm laborhousing violationstransportation violationsrecord-keeping violationswage statement violationsunregistered contractorsemployer responsibilitystatutory damagesagricultural employers
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

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
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Ellen

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
11
Case No. 05-15-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Estate of David Anthony Toarmina

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
7
Case No. 02-21-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Todd Gallaher v. Denton Media Company, Inc. D/B/A Denton Record Chronicle

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
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,861 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