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

West Texas Utilities Co. v. Wills

West Texas Utilities Company, the appellant, appealed an order that denied its plea of privilege to move a slander suit from Tom Green County to Taylor County. The appellee, an employee, accused the company's chief engineer, W. E. Huss, of slandering him by falsely claiming he was faking an injury to defraud the company and its insurer, a claim made after the employee's involvement in union organization. The court found that the statements were slanderous per se, damaging the employee's occupation, and that Huss acted on behalf of the company, with his actions later ratified. The appellant contended that actionable slander was not proven and that Huss was not acting in his corporate capacity. The judgment of the trial court, which upheld venue in Tom Green County, was affirmed.

SlanderPlea of PrivilegeVenue DisputeLabor Union ActivitiesWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityCorporate AgentPer Se SlanderEmployment LawTexas Civil Statutes
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Juan Gerardo Oliva v. Pioquinto Ramon Davila

This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a slander case. Juan Oliva (appellant) appealed a judgment in favor of Pio-quinto Davila (appellee). Davila sued Oliva for slander, alleging Oliva falsely claimed Davila stole property and had an affair with Rosina's mother. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's findings on the falsity of Oliva's statements regarding Davila stealing property and having an affair, and also no evidence to support the damages awarded for injury to reputation. Additionally, the court ruled that intentional infliction of emotional distress was not applicable as a 'gap-filler' tort because slander provided a recognized theory of redress. The court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Oliva.

SlanderDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressLegal SufficiencyDamagesAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefensesStatute of LimitationsSubstantial TruthTrial Amendments
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2000

Maher v. Herrman

The Maher Law Firm and Constance Maher sued former employee Regina Elkins for alleged loan repayment, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Maher also sued Elkins's new employers, David E. Herrman and Herrman & Herrman, L.L.P., for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims. Maher appealed, arguing errors related to the statute of limitations, misidentification of the plaintiff, fraudulent concealment, and the scope of the summary judgment motion regarding the conspiracy claim. The appellate court found errors in the summary judgment regarding the conspiracy claim and the application of the misidentification doctrine to plaintiffs, reversing and remanding those claims, while affirming the dismissal of the loan claims.

Summary Judgment AppealSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyStatute of LimitationsMisidentification DoctrineMisnomerRelation-Back DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePleading Errors
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff Neil V. D’Lima, D.D.S., commenced an employment discrimination action against Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its CEO, Andrew H. Boser, III, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin (Indian), violations of the NYHRL, ADA, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Additionally, the slander per se claim was partially granted regarding statements made by Boser to Kerling due to qualified privilege. However, the motion was denied for the slander per se claim concerning statements made by Boser to Glover and claims where Glover acted under the employer's express authority, as well as the NYHRL claim against Boser. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNYHRLADATitle VIISlander Per SeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conley v. Gravitt

Plaintiff, a maintenance worker, sued defendants Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. and his supervisor James Gravitt for libel, slander, and wrongful discharge after his termination in December 1980. The plaintiff alleged defamatory statements related to drinking, drug use, and job performance. Years later, plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to include a new slanderous statement. The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to amend. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment due to laches and prejudice caused by the delay, as key witnesses were deceased or missing. The court further held that the original complaint lacked merit for wrongful discharge, as plaintiff was an at-will employee, and for libel/slander, due to the plaintiff's failure to set forth the defamatory words in haec verba as required by CPLR 3016 (a). Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, plaintiff's cross-motion denied, and the entire complaint dismissed.

LibelSlanderWrongful DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentAmended ComplaintLachesPrejudiceCPLR 3025 (b)CPLR 3016 (a)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riisna v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Ene Riisna, a former ABC News producer, sued ABC and cosmetic surgeon H. George Brennan. Riisna alleged that ABC fired her due to age discrimination, refused her freelance work in retaliation for her age discrimination claim, and slandered her. She also sued Brennan for tortious interference with her employment. The court denied summary judgment on the age discrimination and retaliation claims against ABC, as well as Brennan's motion. However, ABC's motion to dismiss Riisna's slander claim was granted due to insufficient admissible evidence linking the rumors to ABC. The case will proceed on the remaining claims.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSlanderDefamationSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceEmployment LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Rules of EvidenceHearsay
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aronson v. Wiersma

This defamation action involves a plaintiff, a former legislative assistant for the City of Mount Vernon City Council, appealing the dismissal of her complaint. The plaintiff sued the City Council President for libel, based on a letter expressing dissatisfaction with her performance, and for slander, based on oral statements made by the defendant. Special Term initially denied the motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, directing dismissal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law and did not constitute slander per se, particularly without proof of special damages, which the plaintiff failed to establish.

DefamationLibelSlanderEmployment TerminationPublic Officer ImmunityAbsolute PrivilegeSpecial DamagesAppellate ReviewCause of ActionPleading Requirements
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lane

Wal-Mart appealed a multi-million dollar jury verdict in favor of its former employee, T.J. Lane, who sued for slander, retaliatory discharge, negligent investigation, and sex discrimination after being fired for alleged sexual harassment. The jury initially found for Lane, awarding over two million dollars. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence for slander, rejecting a cause of action for negligent investigation against the employer, and concluding there was no causal connection for retaliatory discharge or evidence of sex discrimination. Consequently, the court rendered judgment that Lane take nothing by his suit.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeSlanderNegligent InvestigationAt-Will EmploymentTexas Labor CodeHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1989

Williams v. Varig Brazilian Airlines

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Varig Brazilian Airlines and Boris Silitschanu following the denial of their motion for summary judgment in the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, a former Senior Payroll Clerk, had sued for slander and libel after her termination, alleging verbal abuse and defamatory memos. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the defendants' motion. It found the slander claims time-barred due to insufficient particularity and late disclosure, and the libel claims non-actionable as constitutionally protected expressions of opinion or similarly barred by the Statute of Limitations without proof of republication. The court emphasized an employer's qualified privilege in assessing employee performance.

Summary JudgmentDefamationSlanderLibelEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsQualified PrivilegeExpressions of OpinionAppellate ReviewCPLR
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 65 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