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

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roeglin v. Daves

The district court initially found a valid and enforceable Rule 11 agreement where Alfred and Sandra Daves settled claims against Scott Roeglin for injuries Alfred Daves sustained in an automobile collision. The Daveses appealed, asserting no such agreement existed, while Roeglin appealed the denial of attorney's fees. The dispute revolved around a series of letters exchanged between the Daveses, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Alfred Daves's worker's compensation carrier), and Roeglin, which Roeglin contended formed a binding Rule 11 agreement. The appellate court, after reviewing the correspondence, concluded that the letters did not satisfy the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for an agreement between the Daveses and Roeglin. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the Daveses' action against Roeglin, remanding that portion for further proceedings, and affirmed the denial of Roeglin's attorney's fees.

Rule 11 AgreementSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesSubrogation ClaimWorkers' CompensationAutomobile CollisionTexas Civil ProcedureStatute of Frauds
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 90-00985-B-11 through 90-00990-B-11 and 90-01984-B-11 through 90-01989-B-11
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

In Re Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

This case pertains to the confirmation of the Third Amended Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 for Greyhound Lines, Inc. and its Affiliated Debtors. The hearing was held on August 27 and 28, 1991, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Richard S. Schmidt in the Southern District of Texas. Numerous creditors and interested parties appeared, and several objections to the plan were filed. The Court, after reviewing evidence and arguments, overruled the remaining objections and found that the plan satisfied all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The plan outlines the restructuring of debtor operations, treatment of various claims, and the liquidation or reorganization of subsidiaries. The Court ultimately confirmed the plan, emphasizing its feasibility and good faith in seeking to maximize returns for creditors and ensure the continuation of essential public services, with a specific exception for Eagle Bus Manufacturing, Inc.

Chapter 11 ReorganizationBankruptcy ConfirmationDebtors-in-PossessionCreditor ObjectionsPlan FeasibilityGood Faith PlanSecured Claims TreatmentUnsecured Claims TreatmentPriority Tax ClaimsNLRB Claim Estimation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rainey v. Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates

The plaintiffs, including Thomas E. Rainey, appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing their personal injury complaint. Rainey had sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Montrose Construction, Inc., which was the sole general partner of the defendant, Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 barred the action against the partnership because it was considered one entity with Rainey's employer for workers' compensation purposes. The court also upheld the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add new direct claims, citing their undue delay in making the motion. Consequently, the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy remained their workers' compensation claim against Montrose.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation BarExclusive RemedyPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAmended ComplaintLabor Law Violations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1991

Andrews v. Bible

This appeal from the Circuit Court of Anderson County concerns the denial of a Rule 11 sanctions motion. Defendants John and Paul Bible sought sanctions against plaintiff Georgia Andrews and her attorney, Michael W. Ritter, after a workers' compensation action was voluntarily nonsuited. The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether Ritter performed an objectively reasonable prefiling investigation and if Rule 11 imposes a continuing obligation to update pleadings. The court found Ritter's prefiling inquiry reasonable, considering the circumstances and time constraints before the statute of limitations. Aligning with most federal circuits, the court held that Tennessee's Rule 11 does not impose a continuing duty to reevaluate or withdraw documents once filed. Consequently, the trial court's denial of sanctions was affirmed.

Rule 11 SanctionsPrefiling InvestigationContinuing ObligationWorkers' CompensationAppellate LawAttorney MalpracticePleading StandardsLitigation AbuseObjective StandardJudicial Ethics
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forged Components, Inc. v. Ricky Guzman

Ricky Guzman sued his employer, Forged Components, Inc. (FCI), for negligence after an on-the-job injury. The case involved competing arbitration agreements: one in FCI's employee welfare plan and a later Rule 11 agreement. The trial court denied FCI's motion to compel arbitration under the Plan but granted Guzman's motion to compel under the Rule 11 agreement. An arbitrator awarded Guzman damages. On appeal, FCI challenged the trial court's decisions, and Guzman cross-appealed regarding prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to compel arbitration under the Rule 11 agreement and modified the judgment to exclude post-judgment interest, also denying Guzman's cross-appeal for prejudgment interest.

Arbitration AgreementsContract FormationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas Arbitration Act (TAA)Rule 11 AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsArbitrator AuthorityPost-Judgment InterestPre-Judgment Interest
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 11,707 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