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. 01-04-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devon SFS Operating , Inc., and IMC Global, Inc. v. First Seismic Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

This declaratory judgment case involved competing interpretations of an indemnity provision in a contract concerning seismic data ownership. Appellants Devon SFS Operating, Inc. and IMC Global, Inc. challenged a trial court ruling that favored Appellee First Seismic Corporation on its indemnity claim and awarded attorney's fees. The dispute centered on whether the indemnity clause covered claims by minority owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the interpretation of the indemnity provision and the award of attorney's fees and costs.

Indemnity AgreementContract InterpretationAttorney's FeesDeclaratory JudgmentSeismic DataSuccessor-in-interestJoint VentureAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves claims of patent infringement by Data Race, Inc. (plaintiff) against Lucent Technologies, Inc. (defendant) regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,764,639 for a "System and Method for Providing a Remote User With a Virtual Presence To An Office." Data Race sought a preliminary injunction and damages, while Lucent counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The court denied Data Race's motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on damages, and found no literal or equivalent infringement by Lucent's Virtual Telephone product. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc., on the issue of infringement. The court declined to fully address Lucent's defenses of patent invalidity and unenforceability, deeming them moot.

Patent InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionVirtual PresenceTelephonyData NetworkingVoice over IPPrior ArtPatent Validity
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. 03-14-00713-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2015

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc.

This Appellee's brief is submitted by CGG Veritas Services (U.S.), Inc. in a case challenging the Comptroller's disallowance of a $567 million Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) deduction from its 2008 Texas Franchise Tax. The trial court ruled in favor of CGG, finding it eligible for the deduction and ordering a refund. CGG argues it qualifies as an "actual owner" of seismic data sold through its multi-client data library, which it contends is "artificial tangible personal property" under the Tax Code, and/or a "deemed owner" by furnishing labor and materials for oil and gas real property improvement projects. The brief asserts that its activities constitute necessary labor and materials for oil and gas well construction and that the Comptroller's arguments misinterpret the statutory provisions and rely on a previously rejected "physical change" theory. CGG seeks to affirm the trial court's judgment, arguing that all claimed costs are allowable and that the Comptroller waived challenges to specific costs.

TaxationFranchise TaxCost of Goods SoldCOGS DeductionTax CodeStatutory ConstructionAppellate LawReal Property ImprovementSeismic DataOil and Gas Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide has been involved in a protracted legal dispute since 1997, challenging the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. This opinion addresses his appeal of a 2014 trial court ruling, which declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed $3,000 in sanctions. Akinwamide contested the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power, and the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, arguing his common-law claims remained pending. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power had expired, and Akinwamide's claims were indeed barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to repeated relitigation of issues previously decided in multiple prior appeals. The court also upheld the sanctions and vexatious litigant declaration, citing Akinwamide's continuous filing of frivolous pleadings and attempts to relitigate settled matters, which demonstrated an improper purpose including harassment.

Workers' Compensation DisputeVexatious LitigantSanctionsSubject-Matter JurisdictionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPlenary PowerAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigationFrivolous Pleading
References
28
Case No. 14-02-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Akinwamide, Patrick Olajide v. Transportation Insurance Company, Automatic Data Processing Inc., and CNA Insurance Co.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide filed a lawsuit after an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim against his employer and two insurance companies, alleging fraud, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees based on limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Akinwamide appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted summary judgment by failing to negate his equitable tolling defense to limitations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Akinwamide failed to provide summary judgment proof for his tolling claims and that his lawsuit was untimely even if tolling applied. Thus, the appellees successfully established their limitations defense.

Summary judgmentLimitations periodRes judicataCollateral estoppelEquitable tollingFraudulent concealmentNegligenceWorkers' compensation claimAppellate reviewAffirmative defense
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 163 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