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. NO. 01-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2007

Yahya Hassan, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Company and Kemal Mohammed, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Cab Company v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A Yellow Cab

This is a dissenting opinion in a trade dress infringement case brought by Greater Houston Transportation Company d/b/a Yellow Cab against Yahya Hassan and Kemal Mohammed d/b/a Safe Cab Co. under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that the appellant failed to preserve its challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and erroneously rejected a legally correct jury charge on 'secondary meaning.' Justice Keyes, the author of the dissent, contends that the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous and, even if it were, the error would not have caused an improper judgment due to sufficient evidence of trade dress infringement. The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.

Trade Dress InfringementLanham ActSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawUnfair CompetitionTaxi Services
References
30
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. 2021-06-1619
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Hutchison, Lisa v. Health Center at Standifer Place

Lisa Hutchison sought workers' compensation benefits for a knee injury from a fall while working for Health Center at Standifer Place. The employer denied the claim, arguing the injury was idiopathic. Following an expedited hearing on August 10, 2022, the Court found Ms. Hutchison unlikely to prevail on the merits regarding her requested relief due to inconsistencies in her account and a lack of supporting evidence. Additionally, the Court referred Health Center at Standifer Place to the Compliance Program for consideration of penalties due to its failure to participate in mediation and appear at court hearings. The requested relief was denied, but nothing precludes her from obtaining supplemental evidence and renewing her requests.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingIdiopathic Injury DefenseEmployer Non-complianceMediation FailureCourt Appearance FailureBenefit DenialKnee InjuryFall at WorkEvidentiary Standard
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dos Santos v. Terrace Place Realty, Inc.

Plaintiff Joanes Dos Santos was injured in a construction accident involving two vehicles at a work site. He sued general contractor Terrace Place Realty, Inc. and its president Alfred Corradi, alleging common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and to implead Kenneth Sankey, the driver of one of the vehicles. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241(6) claims, finding them inapplicable. However, summary judgment was denied on the Labor Law § 200 claim, as a triable issue of fact existed regarding defendants' direction and control of the work and duty to provide a safe workplace. The court also denied defendants' motion to implead Kenneth Sankey due to untimely filing.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 240Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimProximate CauseIntervening Negligent ActSafe Workplace Duty
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. W. T. Carter & Bro.

The appellant, an employee, sued the appellees, a sawmill and lumber manufacturing partnership, for damages due to injuries sustained from a falling limb while clearing a right-of-way. The appellant alleged negligence by the appellees for not providing a safe place to work, insufficient employees, and failure to warn of hazards. The appellees denied the allegations. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellees, which the appellant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no negligence on the part of the appellees, as the danger was created by the employees in the progress of the work, thus the safe-place doctrine did not apply.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work DoctrineInstructed VerdictAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawOccupational InjurySawmill IndustryTexas JurisprudenceProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. City of West University Place

Plaintiff Rita Lamb sued her employer, the Police Department for the City of West University Place, and the City itself, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Lamb claimed her supervisor, Sergeant Michael Peterson, engaged in inappropriate conduct and retaliated against her with negative performance reviews, impacting her pay. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing Peterson's conduct was not severe or pervasive enough for actionable harassment and that they took prompt remedial action. The court found that Lamb failed to establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, concluding Peterson's actions were not sufficiently severe or pervasive and the City's responses were prompt. Additionally, the court dismissed Lamb's retaliation claims, deeming the pay raise complaint time-barred and other allegations legally insufficient, ultimately granting summary judgment for the defendant.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIIQuid Pro QuoEmployment DiscriminationPerformance ReviewConstructive DischargeFederal Court
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Sensitive Care-Lexington Place Health Care, Inc.

Justice O’Connor dissents, asserting the trial judge erred by not sustaining Carrie Baker’s Batson challenge against Lexington Place. Lexington Place used a peremptory strike on Rhonda West, an African-American postal worker, justifying it by claiming postal workers are "militant and pro-employee." However, Lexington Place did not strike Michael Lee Brown, an Anglo male postal worker, and its attorney offered an unconvincing explanation for this disparity. The dissent argues that Lexington Place’s reasons were pretextual, as West's voir dire responses were pro-employer, and there was no evidence of her union membership. Given the disparate treatment and the implausible explanation, Justice O'Connor concludes that the trial court abused its discretion and advocates for a new trial.

Batson ChallengePeremptory StrikeRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionVoir DireEqual ProtectionAbuse of DiscretionPretextual ReasonDissenting OpinionTrial Court Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 11,020 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