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. 10-92-084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1992

Lisa Beth Riley, Individually and as Next Friend for Amanda Gail Riley, Jennifer Nichol Riley, and Michael Joseph Riley v. Houston General Insurance Co.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a workers' compensation case. The appellants sought benefits after Roger Dale Riley's death in a fire that occurred in his apartment while he was asleep. Riley was employed as a maintenance man and lived rent-free at the apartment complex, being 'on call' but not compensated unless he responded to emergencies. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Riley's death did not occur in the course and scope of his employment. The fire was not related to his work, and he was not performing any employer functions at the time of the incident, despite being 'on call'.

Summary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentOn-Call DutyFatal AccidentFire IncidentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimMaintenance WorkerEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2009

Alcalde v. Riley

The plaintiff firefighter sued Jacqueline Riley for personal injuries sustained while responding to a fire at Riley's home in Queens. The fire, caused by reckless use of a torch by subcontractors, prompted the plaintiff to allege violations of General Municipal Law § 205-a and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted Riley's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found Riley failed to demonstrate a lack of connection between alleged statutory violations and the plaintiff's injuries, and that a triable issue of fact existed regarding common-law negligence due to a blocked staircase on the premises.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryGeneral Municipal LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Court DecisionPremises LiabilityHomeowner ResponsibilityStatutory ViolationsSubcontractor Negligence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Ina/Aetna Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Quinton Riley suffered a work-related back injury in March 1989 while employed by Through Transportation Company, whose insurer, INA/AETNA, is the defendant. Following surgery, his treating physician, Dr. Morris Ray, assessed a 5% permanent anatomical disability from this injury. In March 1990, Riley sustained a second back injury while working for Carter-Click Company, leading to further surgery. The defendant, INA/AETNA, appealed the trial court's award of 30% permanent partial disability, arguing for the application of the 'last injurious injury rule' to shift liability to the subsequent employer. The Supreme Court examined the precedent of the rule and determined it was inapplicable here because a permanent disability assessment for the first injury had been made prior to the second injury. Consequently, the trial court's award to Riley was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLast Injurious Injury RuleSuccessive InjuriesMedical AssessmentAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionEmployer LiabilityCausationApportionmentDisability Rating
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1994

Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley

Officers James Riley and Mary Gray, injured by an intoxicated driver, sued Triplex Communications, Inc., a radio station promoting a nightclub where the driver was overserved. They alleged joint enterprise, civil conspiracy, and negligent promotion. The trial court did not find the radio station liable, but the court of appeals reversed, allowing these claims. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the radio station could not be held liable under any of the three theories. The Court found insufficient evidence for joint enterprise, an incorrect definition of civil conspiracy requiring specific intent, and no legal duty for negligent promotion under the circumstances, thereby ordering that the plaintiffs take nothing from the radio station.

Joint EnterpriseCivil ConspiracyNegligent PromotionDram Shop ActTexas Alcoholic Beverage CodeTort LawLiabilityRadio Station LiabilityNightclub LiabilityIntoxicated Driver
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Riley

Tommy Lee and Peggy Sue Riley appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Obion County, which terminated their parental rights to their two minor children. The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) initiated the action due to persistent neglectful living conditions and the parents' limited mental capacities. The Circuit Court's decision was based on findings that termination was in the children's best interest, the conditions leading to removal persisted, and there was little likelihood of the parents remedying them. The appellate court reviewed TDHS's adherence to foster care procedures, provision of rehabilitative services, and visitation arrangements, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, citing the children's physical safety and psychological maturation.

parental rights terminationchild neglectfoster caremental retardationfamily reunification effortschild welfaredependent and neglected childrenjuvenile court appealclear and convincing evidencebest interest of the child
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Triplex Communications, Inc.

Police officers James R. Riley and Mary Gray suffered personal injuries after being struck by a drunk driver who had been served alcohol at The Cowboy Palace Inc. and Vernis J. "Joey" Dartez. They sued Triplex Communications, Inc., and Radio Station KZZB-95 FM, alleging vicarious liability and negligent promotion for their "B-95 Ladies Night" event. The trial court initially ruled against The Cowboy Palace and Dartez but favored Triplex/B-95. Appellants appealed, contesting the trial court's refusal to submit jury questions on joint enterprise and negligent promotion, as well as an erroneous definition of civil conspiracy. The appellate court found errors in the jury charge regarding civil conspiracy and agreed that the issue of joint enterprise and negligent promotion should have been submitted to the jury due to the foreseeable risks associated with the radio station's promotional activities. The decision was affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Personal InjuryNegligent PromotionDram Shop LiabilityJoint EnterpriseCivil ConspiracyAlcohol LiabilityForeseeabilityMedia LiabilityDuty of CareTexas Appellate Court
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Alexander/Ryan Marine Services Co.

This case addresses whether an oil and gas spar platform, the Mad Dog, qualifies as a "vessel" under the Jones Act, impacting plaintiff Jerry Riley's claims. Riley, an employee of BP America Production Company, suffered spinal injuries on the platform and sued his employer, the platform owner BP Exploration and Production Inc., and Alexander/Ryan Marine Services Co. The BP Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the platform's immobility meant Riley was not a seaman. The Court meticulously analyzed the Mad Dog's characteristics, including its attachment to the seabed by eleven mooring lines and two pipelines, and its estimated sixteen-month relocation process. Concluding that the Mad Dog was a permanent structure, practically incapable of maritime transportation rather than mere movement, the Court ruled it was not a vessel. Consequently, Riley's Jones Act and general maritime law claims were dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the BP Defendants, with the Longshore and Harborworkers Compensation Act identified as Riley's exclusive remedy against his employer.

Jones Actmaritime lawoil and gas platformvessel statussummary judgmentoffshore platformOuter Continental ShelfLHWCAseaman statusMad Dog spar
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Riley (In Re Omni Mechanical Contractors, Inc.)

This bankruptcy case involves a trustee's complaint to recover funds from defendants Joel C. Riley and Power Management, Inc., on behalf of the debtor, Omni Mechanical Contractors, Inc. The trustee alleged misappropriation of corporate funds, fraudulent conveyances, and preferential transfers by Riley, a former officer and shareholder of Omni. The court found Omni to be insolvent following a stock repurchase transaction with Riley and Jones. The court ruled in favor of the trustee on several claims, including the recovery of $8,800 for misappropriated funds, $15,000 for the fraudulent transfer of a Mercedes, $38,000 for a fraudulent conveyance related to a shop building, and $6,600 and $12,000 for preferential transfers of vehicles. However, the court denied the trustee's claims for recovery related to a hunting trip, lost profits on the Power Management and Riceville shop projects, and Riley's salary withdrawals, concluding that these actions did not warrant recovery or were not unfair at the time of transaction.

Bankruptcy LawFraudulent ConveyancePreferential TransferInsider TransactionBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate InsolvencyStock RepurchaseAsset RecoveryDebtor-Creditor LawCorporate Governance
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 56 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