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. 127943/02; 103953/03
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. City of New York

District Council 37 (DC-37) brought two Article 78 proceedings (Roberts I and Roberts II) against the City of New York and its Department of Education, challenging the layoff of over 300 provisional civil service employees. DC-37 alleged violations of the Layoff Manual, improper retention of Work Employment Program (WEP) employees, unauthorized contracting out of services, and discriminatory separation of provisional employees who had passed civil service exams. The court found that the Layoff Manual did not create enforceable rights for employees. It also determined that claims regarding WEP workers and contracting out lacked sufficient legal grounds or required different remedies, characterizing these as managerial decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed both petitions, granting the City's cross-motions.

Civil Service LayoffsProvisional EmployeesArticle 78 ProceedingsUnion DisputesBudgetary ConstraintsGovernment Workforce ReductionWEP ProgramAnti-Displacement ProvisionsContracting OutPublic Sector Employment
References
7
Case No. 14-14-01021-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

in Re Robert S. Hoffman and Law Office of Robert S. Hoffman PLLC

This document is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Robert S. Hoffman and Law Office of Robert S. Hoffman PLLC. The petitioners seek to overturn a trial court order that compelled the production of their net worth information. The underlying case is a legal malpractice lawsuit brought by Rachel Brown against her former divorce attorneys, including Hoffman, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking exemplary damages. The petitioners argue that the net worth discovery is premature and not sufficiently justified by the pleadings, especially given the bifurcation of trials for exemplary damages under Texas law. The trial court, presided over by Judge Al Bennett in the 61st District Court of Harris County, granted the motion to compel, ordering production by January 15, 2015, with a scope limited to the total amount of assets, liabilities, and the method of calculation. The petitioners contend that this order is an abuse of discretion and that an appeal would be an inadequate remedy.

Legal MalpracticeFiduciary DutyExemplary DamagesNet Worth DiscoveryWrit of MandamusBifurcated TrialTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureConfidentialityAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Healey

Karin M. Roberts and Marjorie Roberts sued attorney James Sean Healey and his firm for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The suit stemmed from Healey's failure to secure a protective order for Karin against her estranged husband, Daniel Charles Kennedy, who subsequently killed their two children and wounded Marjorie Roberts. The trial court granted summary judgment for Healey on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment for Karin's negligence, gross negligence, and DTPA claims, and for Marjorie's negligence and gross negligence claims, holding that Healey's failure to obtain a protective order was too attenuated from Kennedy's criminal acts to establish legal causation. However, the court reversed and remanded Karin's breach of contract and breach of warranty claims, and Marjorie's DTPA, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and bystander damages claims, finding that Healey's motion for summary judgment did not adequately address these specific grounds.

Attorney MalpracticeLegal NegligenceCausationSummary Judgment AppealDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyAttorney-Client RelationshipBystander DamagesProtective Orders
References
21
Case No. 04-18-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2019

Michelle Nino, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Nino, Julyssa Sixx Nino Robert Nino Jr. And Alyssa Nikki Nino v. Primoris Energy Services Corp.

Robert Niño, an employee of Primoris, died from a heart attack after experiencing heat stress symptoms at work and repeatedly declining offers of medical assistance. His family (the Niños) sued Primoris, alleging gross negligence for failing to provide immediate medical treatment. The trial court granted Primoris's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court found no evidence that Primoris employees acted with conscious indifference, as they took precautions and repeatedly offered aid, which Robert declined, concluding Primoris was not grossly negligent.

Gross negligenceWorkers' compensationExclusive remedySummary judgmentHeat stressHeart attackEmployee deathTexas lawAppellate reviewObjective risk
References
13
Case No. 278 S.W.3d 778
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

Roberts v. State

Mary Roberts appealed her conviction on five counts of theft by coercion or deception. Between April and October 2001, Roberts engaged in sexual relations with multiple men. Her husband, Ted Roberts, subsequently initiated pre-suit discovery petitions (Rule 202 Petitions) against these men, alleging adultery and other potential claims, and demanding monetary settlements. Mary Roberts actively assisted Ted by typing revisions to the petitions, delivering one petition, and arranging meetings. The complainants paid significant sums, portions of which were used for the Roberts' personal expenses, including the purchase of a new home. On appeal, Roberts challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing a lack of causation and intent, and asserted an affirmative defense of mistake of law. She also raised issues regarding jury instructions, the indictment's sufficiency, and the constitutionality of the theft statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, finding sufficient evidence of her intent and criminal responsibility as a party to the offense, upholding the trial court's jury instructions, and rejecting her challenges to the indictment and the theft statute's constitutionality. The court clarified that the State was not required to establish "but for" causation but rather that Roberts acted with intent to assist Ted in committing theft by deception or coercion.

TheftCoercionDeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityParty to OffenseAffirmative DefenseMistake of LawJury InstructionIndictment SufficiencyConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Willow Distributors, Inc.

This memorandum order addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Willow Distributors, Inc. against plaintiff Aaron Roberts. Roberts, an African-American former employee, sued Willow alleging breach of employment contract, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations for unpaid overtime, Title VII violations for racial discrimination and retaliation, and gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Willow on the FLSA claim, determining Roberts was an exempt "outside salesman." It also granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims, finding Roberts failed to demonstrate Willow's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his transfer denial and termination were pretextual. Consequently, the court remanded Roberts's remaining state law claims to the state district court, as all federal claims had been dismissed before trial.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationFair Labor Standards ActTitle VIISummary JudgmentOvertime PayRetaliationDisparate TreatmentFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Case No. 07-19-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Michelle Latray as Receiver of the Assets of Clifton Boatright for the Benefit of Judgment Creditors W.L. Roberts, Dana Roberts, Erin Leigh Roberts, and Katelyn Robert Gonzales v. Colony Insurance Company D/B/A Colony Specialty Insurance Co.

Michelle Latray, acting as a receiver for judgment creditors of Clifton Boatright, appealed a summary judgment ruling which found Colony Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify Boatright. Latray argued the trial court erred because Colony had a duty to defend and indemnify Boatright for damages caused by dumping debris and damaging fences, asserting the acts were negligent rather than intentional, or at least the fence damage was. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, denied Latray's motion for rehearing. It affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Boatright's act of dumping debris was intentional, thus not an 'occurrence' covered by the policy. Although the damage to fencing was negligent, the policy's auto exclusion applied to the use of the dump truck and trailer, negating Colony's duty to defend or indemnify for those damages as well.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAuto ExclusionIntentional TortsNegligenceProperty DamageDebris DumpingReceiver
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 1,239 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