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. M1999-01272-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2001

Project Creation, Inc. v. Kenneth Neal

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed on Project Creation, Inc. and Sean Meek after their libel lawsuit was dismissed. The original libel action was filed against neighbors who wrote a letter to a local newspaper opposing Project Creation's proposed 'Ark Museum and Dinosaur Park' project, alleging deception and misleading statements related to zoning. The trial court found the libel action was filed for an improper purpose and lacked factual support under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11, awarding the defendants $9,262.90 in attorney fees and expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to impose sanctions, holding that an objective reasonableness standard applies to represented parties, even if they did not sign the offending document. However, the appellate court vacated the monetary award, remanding the case for a recalculation of sanctions to include only those fees and costs directly resulting from the libel lawsuit, not from the intertwined zoning dispute.

Rule 11 SanctionsLibel LawsuitImproper PurposeLack of Factual SupportAttorney FeesLitigation CostsObjective Reasonableness StandardNonsigning Party LiabilityZoning DisputeFreedom of Speech
References
24
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02509 [182 AD3d 944]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Women's Project & Prods., Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

The Women's Project and Productions, Inc. (WPP), a non-profit theater company, appealed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found WPP liable for additional tax contributions on remuneration paid to certain individuals, including artistic advisors and directors, whom WPP had treated as independent contractors. The Department of Labor, however, considered these individuals employees. The Board modified an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that WPP's arguments were unpersuasive and that the Board rationally concluded WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment. Consequently, the additional tax contributions imposed upon WPP were upheld.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPerforming ArtsStatutory PresumptionLabor LawTax ContributionsAppeal BoardRebuttalArtistic Services
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd.

Relators, TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge William R. Burke, Jr., to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause. The real party in interest, British American Offshore Limited (BAOL), had sued the relators for promissory estoppel, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Relators argued they were entitled to enforce the forum-selection clause found in rig contracts, even as nonsignatories. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding that the relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to present it adequately in their initial petition, raising it only in a reply brief. Consequently, the relators failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion.

MandamusForum-selection clauseWaiverAppellate procedureMotion to dismissNonsignatoriesTort claimsContract disputeInvestment fundOil drilling
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01663 [192 AD3d 1594]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

Chrisman v. Syracuse Soma Project, LLC

Michael Chrisman, an employee of EJ Construction Group, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping on snowy metal decking at a construction site. He sued Syracuse SOMA Project, LLC (owner) and Burke Contracting, LLC (general contractor) under Labor Law. Burke initiated a third-party action against Whitacre Engineering Co. (subcontractor for steel mesh) and EJ Construction Group, Inc. (subcontractor employing Chrisman) for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order, ruling that the violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not conclusively establish liability but is merely evidence of negligence, thus raising factual issues. The court also found no contractual indemnification between Burke and Whitacre due to the lack of a formal contract but erred in dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against EJ Construction Group, Inc. The order was modified by reinstating the fifth cause of action against EJ and denying plaintiff's cross motion entirely, and as modified, affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Action
References
15
Case No. 08-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

Tony Labrado and Sunset Coaches, Inc. v. County of El Paso, Texas and Lulac Project Amistad, Inc.

Sunset Coaches, Inc. and its president Tony Labrado challenged El Paso County's award of two transit service contracts to LULAC Project Amistad, Inc., alleging LULAC was not the lowest responsible bidder. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and LULAC. On appeal, the court dismissed Sunset's damages claim due to governmental immunity but held that Labrado and Sunset had standing for injunctive and declaratory relief, and the case was not moot. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, finding that the County abused its discretion by awarding contracts to LULAC, as LULAC failed to meet the material bid specification of maintaining a well-equipped garage. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding LULAC's licensing and attorney's fees.

Public ContractsCompetitive BiddingGovernmental ImmunityStandingMootnessDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefAbuse of DiscretionBid SpecificationsLowest Responsible Bidder
References
46
Case No. 14-08-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2008

in Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West (Relators) against British American Offshore Limited (BAOL). Relators sought to compel the district court judge to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss, which was based on a forum-selection clause. The underlying dispute involved BAOL's tort claims against Relators, who were not signatories to the original rig contracts but sought to enforce the clause. The appellate court denied the petition, ruling that the Relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to adequately present it in their initial petition.

MandamusForum Selection ClauseWaiverAppellate ProcedureTexas LawTort ClaimsMotion to DismissReal Party in InterestContract DisputeJurisdiction
References
19
Case No. 01-14-00906-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Inc.

This appeal concerns a judgment for attorneys' fees awarded to the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston (Houston BBB) against John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. John Moore initially filed a lawsuit alleging various torts, and the Houston BBB moved to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Houston BBB's motion, leading to a jury trial on attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. The jury found in favor of the Houston BBB, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, dismissing John Moore's claims with prejudice and awarding fees and sanctions. John Moore, as the appellant, argues that the awarded attorneys' fees are not legally sufficient due to inadequate documentation and that a new trial is warranted to consider all of its claims, including antitrust claims, which it contends were improperly severed. The core argument is about the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and the equity of the award given the procedural history.

Attorneys' FeesAnti-SLAPP StatuteAppellate ProcedureCase ConsolidationJudicial DiscretionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReasonableness of FeesSanctionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeFree Speech Rights
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 959 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