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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 05-15-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

J&M Sales of Texas, LLC v. Anette H. Sams

Anette H. Sams sued J&M Sales of Texas, LLC for negligence after sustaining an injury from a falling shelf in a retail store. Sams secured a default judgment for $45,350.79 against J&M Sales. J&M Sales subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting that their failure to file an answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that they possessed a meritorious defense based on Sams's potential contributory negligence, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Sams. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that J&M Sales had successfully met all three elements of the Craddock standard for granting a new trial, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Negligence ClaimDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock StandardMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 12-13-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips

Guy Sparkman appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and others. Sparkman alleged that Microsoft's representatives remotely accessed his computer and caused issues, which he believed was part of a scheme to coerce him into purchasing updated software. He filed a suit based on breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court declared Sparkman a vexatious litigant and dismissed his suit for failing to furnish a required $7,500 security. On appeal, Sparkman raised six issues, including challenges to judicial authority and bias, the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statute, and due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Sparkman's arguments.

Vexatious LitigantDismissalAppealConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudicial RecusalJudicial AuthorityPro Se Litigant
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC

The plaintiff was injured while employed by D.S. Imports on premises leased by Delmar Sales, Inc. and purchased by Pacific Classen Realty, LLC the day after the accident. The appellate court found that the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Pacific Classen Realty, LLC should have been granted because PCR did not own the premises at the time of the accident. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales, Inc., ruling that it failed to prove the plaintiff was a special employee or that it was an alter ego of D.S. Imports. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as it failed to establish it was not an owner or agent.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawPremises LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionReal Estate OwnershipLessor LiabilityLessee Liability
References
21
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacHinery Sales Co. v. Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC

Machinery Sales Co., Inc. filed an action for rescission of a contract to purchase a chip mill, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC, Columbia Trading, Inc., and Champion International Corporation regarding the mill's value and included items. Following a bench trial, the court found no fraud and entered judgment for the defendants. Machinery Sales appealed, presenting issues concerning fraudulent inducement, agency imputation, entitlement to rescission, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that defendants did not fraudulently induce the contract.

Rescission of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationChip Mill SaleContract DisputeBench TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentTennessee LawReal Estate AppraisalAgency Law
References
10
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. 2015-06-0332
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2015

Jones, Cedric v. Crencor Leasing & Sales

The employee, Cedric Jones, sustained a left shoulder injury at work when a ladder fell. His employer, Crencor Leasing and Sales, provided medical benefits but contested temporary disability payments, asserting Jones was terminated for cause. Jones claimed his dismissal was a pretext for absences related to his injury and that suitable light-duty work was not provided. The trial court upheld the termination for cause but found the employer could not accommodate Jones's medical restrictions, leading to an award of temporary disability. On appeal, the Appeals Board affirmed the termination for cause finding, but reversed the determination that the employer could not provide accommodations, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTermination for CauseTemporary Disability BenefitsWork RestrictionsPretextAccommodationsShoulder InjuryMedical TreatmentEmployee MisconductTimecard Fraud
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2009

George v. IBC Sales Corp.

The defendant IBC Sales Corporation appealed an order denying its cross-motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death action. The decedent, an employee of Interstate Brands Corporation (Brands), was killed at a bakery thrift store owned by IBC Sales, a subsidiary of Brands. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, filed a workers' compensation claim, which found a work-related death, and then sued IBC Sales. IBC Sales argued that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of Brands or the decedent's special employer. The Supreme Court denied IBC Sales’s cross-motion, finding questions of fact regarding the alter ego status and special employment relationship. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that IBC Sales failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter EgoSpecial EmployeeParent SubsidiaryCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewNew York StateNassau County
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,309 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