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

Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. v. Lower Manhattan Development Corp.

This case involves a contractual dispute between Bovis Lend Lease (LMB), Inc. (Plaintiff), a deconstruction contractor, and Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) (Defendant), responsible for redeveloping lower Manhattan after 9/11. Bovis was contracted to deconstruct the Deutsche Bank Building but encountered unforeseen regulatory interference and delays, leading to significant cost overruns. Bovis's amended complaint sought damages for extra work, general conditions, profit, insurance costs, and constructive acceleration. The court ruled that Bovis's claims for extra work due to regulatory interference and damages for delay were barred by the contract's 'no damages for delay' clause and the explicit assumption of regulatory delay risks by Bovis. While some claims were dismissed, others related to amounts due under the original lump sum contract, including overhead, profit, and insurance (excluding fire-related incremental costs), were reinstated after reargument. Ultimately, the court emphasized upholding the clear terms of the contract between sophisticated business entities.

Contractual disputeDeconstruction projectRegulatory interferenceDelay damagesNo damages for delay clauseExtra workConstruction lawAppellate reviewContract interpretationRisk allocation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which affirmed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' finding of child neglect against him. This finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, effectively prohibiting his future employment with children. Carrizales initially sought judicial review in the district court, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the basis for his appeal, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Carrizales introduced an argument for an inherent right to judicial review, claiming his constitutional liberty interest in employment was violated. However, the appellate court ruled that this constitutional argument was not preserved in the district court and therefore could not be considered on appeal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carrizales's petition.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeChild NeglectTexas Family CodeAdministrative Procedure ActSubject-Matter JurisdictionLiberty InterestConstitutional ClaimWaiver of IssueAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 03-99-00422-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1999

Armando Carrizales v. Texas Department of Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales sought judicial review of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order upholding a finding by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he neglected a child. The finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, potentially barring his future employment with children. In the district court, Carrizales argued for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which was denied. On appeal, Carrizales asserted an inherent right to judicial review based on a constitutionally protected liberty interest, but the Court of Appeals held that he failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActChild NeglectLiberty InterestDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionWaiverPreservation of ErrorCentral Registry
References
15
Case No. 01-00-01245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Department of Protection and Regulatory Services v. Schutz, Ann Jeanette

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment. AnnJeanette and Mark Schutz sought a declaration that the definition of "neglect" in the Family Code was unconstitutionally vague as applied to AnnJeanette, and that she was not guilty of neglect after a foster child drowned in their pool. The district court ruled in their favor, but the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Schutzes failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing judicial review. The court also clarified the distinction between "foster home" and "agency foster home" under the Human Resources Code.

child neglectfoster caredeclaratory judgmentsubject-matter jurisdictionadministrative remediesexhaustion doctrinesovereign immunitystatutory constructiondue processTexas Family Code
References
39
Case No. 1999-05407
Regular Panel Decision

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc.

This case involves appeals by defendants Ramon Rosa and Leigh Russo from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn. The Appellate Division modified another order, granting Leigh Russo's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (defamation) against her, finding the statement subject to qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to allege malice. Additionally, the plaintiff was denied leave to replead the sixth cause of action (conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contractual relations) against both defendants, as New York does not recognize an independent tort for conspiracy. The Supreme Court's decision to not dismiss the second cause of action against Ramon Rosa for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations was upheld.

DefamationTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionLeave to RepleadQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureConspiracy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Allsup

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. 03-01-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Izzat Davis v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

Appellant Izzat Davis appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her two children, T.J. and A.D. The children were removed from her care after T.J. suffered fourteen brand-like burns for which appellant did not seek timely medical attention. The jury found that parental rights should be terminated, citing appellant's endangerment of the children's well-being and finding termination to be in their best interest. Appellant challenged the evidentiary sufficiency, the admission of evidence regarding her prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter of another child, and constitutional violations. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectEvidentiary SufficiencyConstitutional RightsPrior ConvictionMedical NegligenceFoster CareBest Interest of ChildTexas Family Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Utility Workers Union v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) challenged Section 606 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which mandates fingerprint checks for unescorted access to nuclear facilities. The UWUA sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) implementing regulation. The court dismissed the challenge to the NRC regulation due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling it a final order reviewable only by the Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, and the action was untimely. Addressing the constitutional challenge to the statute, the court found that the fingerprinting requirement did not violate Fourth Amendment or privacy rights, deeming the intrusion minimal and rationally related to national security. Consequently, the plaintiff's motions were denied, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Constitutional LawFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsFingerprintingNuclear SecurityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJurisdictionAtomic Energy ActHobbs Act
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 658 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