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

950 Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. Partnership

This accelerated interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The dispute involves three limited partnerships formed in 2004 for real estate acquisition and management. The partnership agreements contained a broad arbitration clause, but limited arbitrators to awarding "compensatory damages only." Appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, LP and Kotts Capital Holdings, Inc., sought declaratory relief in district court after an offer to purchase the properties was rejected. Appellants, including 950 Corbindale, L.P. and others, moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's scope. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held the arbitration agreements were valid and the dispute, including the request for declaratory relief, was within the scope of arbitration, despite the damages limitation. The court reasoned that "compensatory damages only" modified the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant other forms of relief. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration ClausePartnership DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationScope of ArbitrationCompensatory DamagesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Willson v. Shannon

Plaintiffs Helene Smith Willson and Arlyn-ra Edward brought an action against the Defendant Army for gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. A jury found that the Army discriminated against them by denying access to a real estate appraiser's position and unlawfully retaliated after their complaints. The Court denied the Defendant's motion for a new trial, upholding the jury's verdict and rejecting arguments against retroactivity of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the scope of damages. The Plaintiffs' motions for judgment, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief were granted, with the Court awarding substantial damages for back pay, front pay, and mental anguish, along with attorney's fees. Additionally, the Defendant was permanently enjoined from further discriminatory or retaliatory conduct, and preferential placement was ordered for the Plaintiffs in the Galveston district office.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Gender DiscriminationJury TrialAttorney's FeesInjunctive ReliefFront PayBack Pay
References
5
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atmos Energy Corp. v. Abbott

The appellants, Atmos Energy Corporations and Enermart Energy Services Trust, appealed the dismissal of their request for declaratory relief against the Office of the Attorney General in Travis County. They sought a declaration that a state statute regulating natural gas prices for agricultural users did not apply to them, or was unconstitutional if it did. The trial court granted the OAG's plea to the jurisdiction, citing pending parallel litigation and the appellants' failure to demonstrate an actual or threatened injury. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the appellants' claims were not ripe for adjudication. It determined that the issues lacked fitness for judicial review and that denying the requested relief did not impose sufficient hardship on the appellants, thereby affirming the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Declaratory JudgmentRipeness DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityConstitutional ChallengeStatutory InterpretationUtilities CodeAgricultural UsersNatural Gas PricingPre-enforcement Suit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwald v. Axelrod (In Re Greenwald)

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health sought relief from an automatic stay in a Chapter 11 liquidation case to complete administrative proceedings concerning the debtor's medicaid reimbursement entitlements. The debtor, Sidney Greenwald d/b/a Maple Leaf Nursing Home, opposed the application, arguing the state's interest was pecuniary, not regulatory, thus precluding the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exception. The court found that the Commissioner's interest was indeed pecuniary, aiming to recoup approximately $911,500 in medicaid overpayments, and thus the regulatory exception did not apply. However, considering that the debtor's nursing home was sold, no patients were at risk, and the case was a liquidation, the court granted the relief from the stay, allowing the administrative appeals to conclude, with any enforcement subject to the bankruptcy court's review of the developed administrative record.

Automatic StayBankruptcyChapter 11Medicaid ReimbursementGovernmental Regulatory PowerPecuniary InterestAdministrative ProceedingsLiquidation CaseAudit AppealsNew York State Department of Health
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Accident Fund Gen. Ins. Co.

Ricky Sayaz, an injured employee, sued his employer, Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC, for wrongful discharge and retaliation, and also sued his workers' compensation carrier, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, and its adjuster, Kriste Henderson, for aiding and abetting, tortious interference, and conspiracy, alleging misuse of the "bona fide offer of employment" process to justify his termination. Accident Fund and Henderson sought a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the Division of Workers' Compensation held exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court denied this plea, leading to this original proceeding. The higher court determined that Sayaz's claims against Accident Fund and Henderson arise from the statutory claims-handling process and fall under the Division's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to Accident Fund and Henderson, directing the trial court to dismiss claims against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, while denying mandamus relief to Coil Tubing Solutions, LLC.

Workers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionMandamus ReliefBona Fide Offer of EmploymentRetaliatory DischargeTortious InterferenceConspiracyClaims HandlingAdministrative RemediesSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. 15-24-00133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Insight Investments, LLC v. Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

This document is an Appellant’s Opposed Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief filed by Insight Investments, LLC. Insight is appealing a trial court order from the 380th District Court, Collin County, Texas, which mandated a supersedeas bond of $5,903,679.08. Insight argues that the underlying judgment primarily grants equitable relief and attorney’s fees, without specifying a monetary award for the breach of contract claim, and that the trial court's order was issued without a hearing. Insight initially posted a $500 cash deposit, believing it sufficient to cover attorney’s fees, and now seeks an emergency stay from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to prevent execution of the judgment pending a review of the supersedeas amount.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefSupersedeas BondAppealBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefAttorneys' FeesTrial Court OrderAppellate ProcedureStay of Execution
References
20
Case No. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,540 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