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. M2021-01504-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Charles Youree, Jr. filed a lawsuit against Recovery House of East Tennessee, LLC (RHET) and RHT Holdings, LLC, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold them liable for a prior default judgment obtained against Recovery Solutions Network, LLC (RSN). The trial court initially granted a default judgment, applying the 'Allen factors'. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'Continental Bankers elements' were the correct framework for piercing the corporate veil. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, clarifying that the three Continental Bankers elements provide the correct standard in all corporate veil-piercing contexts, while the Allen factors are merely relevant circumstances. The Supreme Court found the complaint failed to sufficiently plead the 'fraud or wrong' and 'causation' elements, thus failing to articulate a claim for piercing the corporate veil. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Corporate Veil PiercingLimited LiabilityDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule 59.04 MotionContinental Bankers ElementsAllen FactorsParent-Subsidiary LiabilityPleading StandardsCorporate Separateness
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. 14-16-00933-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appeal by Central Petroleum Limited, an Australian company, against the denial of its special appearance in a Texas lawsuit filed by Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (GRR). GRR sued Central for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent misrepresentation related to an agreement to find a farmout partner for Central's petroleum rights. Central contested personal jurisdiction, arguing the alleged "Second Agreement" with a Texas forum-selection clause was unauthorized, fabricated, and incomplete. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence of Central's purposeful availment of Texas law through its agent's apparent authority to sign the contract and a substantial connection between Central's Texas contacts and GRR's tort claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitFraudulent MisrepresentationForum-Selection ClauseChoice-of-Law ProvisionApparent AuthorityCorporate AgentOil and Gas
References
38
Case No. 03-03-00580-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co. appealed a district court order affirming a decision by the Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board. The Board had awarded Carnes damages for a breach-of-contract complaint against McManus. McManus argued that the Board's administrative determination violated its state constitutional right to a jury trial for a breach-of-contract claim. The appellate court agreed, finding that the administrative scheme completely abrogated this right, which was established prior to the 1876 Texas Constitution. Consequently, the court held the Board's order unconstitutional as applied to McManus, reversing the district court's final order and vacating the Board's decision.

Jury Trial RightConstitutional ViolationBreach of ContractAdministrative Due ProcessProduce Recovery FundTexas Constitution Article I Section 15Appellate Court ReviewStatutory SchemeAgriculture LawDe Novo Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

McManus-Wyatt Produce Co., Inc. (McManus) appealed a district court order that affirmed a decision by the Texas Department of Agriculture Produce Recovery Fund Board. The Board had awarded Eddy Carnes and Carnes Farms, Inc. $138,439.74, with $35,000 from the Produce Recovery Fund and the remainder to be paid by McManus. McManus argued that the Board's determination violated its state constitutional right to a jury trial, as a breach-of-contract suit was also pending in Hidalgo County district court. The appellate court agreed, finding that the administrative scheme completely abrogated McManus's right to a jury trial on a breach-of-contract claim, a right preserved by the Texas Constitution of 1876. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order and vacated the Board's order, deeming it unconstitutional as applied to McManus.

Jury TrialConstitutional RightBreach of ContractAdministrative LawProduce Recovery FundTexas Agriculture CodeDue ProcessPACAAppellate ReviewVacated Order
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The case involves a special proceeding initiated by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to obtain a turnover order for funds held in a joint bank account of judgment debtor Lizette M. Calderia and Genoveva Castillo at JPMorgan Chase Bank. A key legal question was the applicability of CPLR article 52 amendments, effective January 1, 2009, which introduce new protections for judgment debtors, to proceedings commenced prior to but heard after this effective date. The court ruled that CPLR 5232 (e), concerning execution exemptions, applies retroactively due to its remedial nature, while provisions for restraining notices (CPLR 5222-a, 5222 [i]) do not. Given the judgment debtors' default, the court determined that a hearing is necessary to assess whether the statutorily exempt amount is genuinely required for the judgment debtor's reasonable needs and those of her dependents. The decision directs that if the judgment debtors default at the hearing, all funds in the account will be made available to the judgment creditor.

Turnover OrderJudgment DebtorExemption LawsCPLR Article 52Retroactivity of StatutesJoint Bank AccountRestraining NoticeExecution of JudgmentSpecial ProceedingStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,037 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