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

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Britt v. Sherman Foundry

Plaintiff Britt sued his former employer, Sherman Foundry, under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act for wrongful discharge after an on-the-job injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, Britt argued that Article 8307c applied to non-subscribers and that informing his supervisor constituted instituting proceedings under the Act. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Britt's petition did not allege the filing of a claim or institution of proceedings required by Article 8307c prior to his termination. The court also clarified that merely reporting the injury was not sufficient to institute proceedings, especially since Britt was not covered by compensation insurance.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Worker's Compensation ActArticle 8307cNon-subscriber EmployerClaim FilingInstitution of ProceedingsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman v. National Grid

Plaintiff Sherry A. Sherman sued National Grid for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. She alleged gender discrimination, retaliation, and unequal pay due to incidents like delayed promotion, inappropriate comments, a physical demands test, and denial of 'storm work.' National Grid moved for summary judgment, arguing many claims were time-barred and others lacked a prima facie case. The court granted summary judgment for National Grid, finding most allegations time-barred and timely claims insufficient to establish discrimination or retaliation. Consequently, the plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionTimeliness of ClaimsPrima Facie CaseContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esthay v. Sherman

Arthur G. Sherman (appellee) filed a personal injury suit against D. Esthay, T. Esthay, and J. N. Simon (appellants) in the District Court of Chambers County, Texas. Sherman, an employee, alleged negligence due to the appellants' failure to provide a safe workplace and equipment, including a defective log-skidder and chain, and inadequate supervision. The appellants denied an employer-employee relationship, claiming Sherman was an independent contractor who took over a contract from his father, E. H. Sherman. The jury found that Arthur G. Sherman was an employee, not an independent contractor, and that the appellants' negligence proximately caused his injuries. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Sherman for $7,500. The appellants appealed, contending the evidence did not support the finding of an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Sherman was an employee.

Personal InjuryEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorNegligenceLog SkidderDefective EquipmentSafe WorkplaceProximate CauseJury FindingsAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Sherman Gin Co.

Lucio Suarez sued Sherman Gin Co. and others for personal injuries sustained in a cotton ginning machine accident that occurred after Sherman Gin Co. was dissolved. Suarez sought to recover damages under the trust fund theory from former directors, officers, and shareholders, and through the de facto merger doctrine against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trust fund theory does not apply to post-dissolution claims, and no de facto merger occurred. Texas Employers' Insurance Association's claim for workers' compensation and medical benefits paid to Suarez was also denied.

Corporate DissolutionSuccessor LiabilityTrust Fund TheoryDe Facto MergerPost-Dissolution ClaimsProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentTexas Business Corporation ActAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Primerica Corp.

Plaintiff's agency with National Benefit Life Insurance Company was terminated, leading to an antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as state law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found no concerted action under Sherman Act § 1 due to the corporate structure and dismissed the Clayton Act § 7 claim as inapplicable to this case. Furthermore, the Sherman Act § 2 monopolization claim failed as the defendant's 19% market share was insufficient to establish monopoly power. Consequently, the pendent state law claims for Donnelly Act violation and breach of contract were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActClayton ActMonopolyAttempted MonopolizationSummary JudgmentCorporate StructureWholly-Owned SubsidiaryMarket SharePendent Jurisdiction
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,796 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