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

Martin v. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.

Appellant Joyce Martin sued Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (CPL) for wrongful termination, alleging she was fired for leaving work early to vote. The trial court dismissed her case, and Martin appealed. The appellate court first addressed Martin's standing to sue, concluding that despite filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she retained standing as her claim revested in her upon the confirmation of her bankruptcy plan. On the merits, Martin argued for a new common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, citing Texas public policy and the Texas Election Code. However, the appellate court declined to create such an exception, emphasizing the legislature's role in defining exceptions to the at-will doctrine and noting that Martin's pleadings did not definitively show a violation of the Election Code. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.

wrongful terminationemployment at willright to voteTexas Election Codepublic policy exceptionChapter 13 bankruptcystandingappellate reviewcase dismissalemployer retaliation
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2014

Gilkerson v. Chasewood Bank

Victoria Gilkerson and Blind Ambitions Groups (BAG) filed a putative class action against The Chasewood Bank, alleging its ATM at 8500 Cypresswood Drive, Spring, Texas, was not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, violating the ADA and Texas state laws. Chasewood moved to dismiss, primarily arguing Gilkerson and BAG lacked standing, especially given Gilkerson's status as a 'serial litigant' or 'tester.' The court denied the motions, finding Gilkerson had established standing under the 'deterrent effect doctrine' due to her past encounters with non-compliant ATMs and her intent to use accessible ATMs in her travel zone. BAG also established representational standing through Gilkerson's membership. The case will proceed to address the factual dispute regarding ATM compliance.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA Title IIIATM AccessibilityVisually ImpairedDisability DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitStanding DoctrineInjunctive ReliefTexas Human Resource CodeTexas Architectural Barrier Act
References
122
Case No. 11 civ. 913, 11 civ. 4212
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Irving Picard, the SIPA Trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG, along with their affiliates and feeder funds, to recover billions in damages. The Trustee alleged that these defendants aided and abetted Madoff's Ponzi scheme through common law claims such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Trustee lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to BMIS's customers, not BMIS itself. The court agreed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee typically represents the debtor, and Madoff's misconduct, imputed to BMIS, invoked the in pari delicto doctrine, precluding BMIS from suing. The court also rejected the Trustee's arguments for standing based on Bankruptcy Code Section 544(a), New York's contribution statute, and common law bailment or equitable subrogation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss all common law claims was granted due to the Trustee's lack of standing.

Ponzi SchemeSecurities Investor Protection ActBankruptcy TrusteeStanding to SueCommon Law ClaimsAiding and Abetting FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyIn Pari DelictoCreditor ClaimsDebtor's Estate
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach & Manhattan Beach, Inc. v. Planning Commission of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by individual and organizational petitioners, including Sternberg, Torresi, Parisi, Fruchtman, the Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach, Inc., and Centello Towers II, against respondents Family Golf Centers, Inc. and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Petitioners challenged a concession granted to Family Golf for a recreational center in Dreier-Offerman Park, alleging interferences with park use and violations of the City Charter, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and City Environmental Quality Review Rules (CEQR). The IAS Court initially dismissed the petition for lack of standing and found no environmental review violations. On appeal, the court reversed the standing determination, finding petitioners had standing due to their proximity and alleged injuries. It also found the Parks Department's approval arbitrary and capricious due to the City Planning Commission's failure to define "major concession" under City Charter § 374(b), remanding for a new determination. However, the court affirmed that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and CEQR and that the public trust doctrine was not violated.

StandingConcessionEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRCity CharterArticle 78 ProceedingDreier-Offerman ParkUrban PlanningLand Use
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1983

Goosley v. Binghamton City School District Board of Education

An account clerk employed by a school district sought to enroll in her husband's dental plan after benefit coordination denied her deductible claims. Her application was denied, and a union grievance filed on her behalf was also denied, leading her to file a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, which was dismissed, and that appeal is pending. She then commenced a breach of contract action in Supreme Court against the school district, seeking damages or specific performance for refusing to enroll her in the dental plan. The defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing and that the action was barred by the election of remedies under Executive Law § 297. Special Term denied these motions, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the plaintiff had standing to bring the action and was not precluded by the election of remedies doctrine.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining AgreementDental PlanEmployee BenefitsGrievance ProcedureStanding (Law)Election of RemediesExecutive Law § 297Discrimination (Marital Status)Human Rights Appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Ex Rel. Vacco v. Mid Hudson Medical Group, P.C.

The People of the State of New York, represented by the Attorney General, sued Mid Hudson Medical Group, P.C., alleging discrimination against hearing-impaired patients by failing to provide sign language interpreters for medical examinations, in violation of federal and state civil rights laws including the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Mid Hudson moved to dismiss federal claims for lack of standing and arguing Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements were not federal financial assistance. The court denied Mid Hudson's motion to dismiss, affirming the state's parens patriae standing and confirming that Medicaid and Medicare constitute federal financial assistance. Additionally, the court denied Mid Hudson's motion to compel production of TTY conversation transcripts, holding they were protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActDisability DiscriminationMedical AccessibilitySign Language InterpretationParens Patriae DoctrineStanding to SueFederal Financial AssistanceAttorney Work Product DoctrineMotion to Dismiss
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Intellective, Inc. v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

Plaintiff Intellective Inc. filed an antitrust action against five life insurance companies (the 'Working Group'), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), and Sagamore Advisors, alleging a conspiracy to monopolize the market for investment performance studies of life insurance companies. Intellective claimed the Working Group used restrictive 'Letter Agreements' to control proprietary data, preventing competition and Intellective's ability to create rival studies. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on various legal doctrines, including the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and lack of antitrust standing. The court granted the motions to dismiss against PwC and Sagamore entirely, finding no alleged anticompetitive conduct, and also dismissed Counts Three and Five against all defendants. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss against the Insurance Company Defendants, allowing Counts One, Two, Four, and Six to proceed against them.

Antitrust LawMonopolizationConspiracy to MonopolizeGroup BoycottSherman ActClayton ActDonnelly ActMotion to DismissAntitrust StandingNoerr-Pennington Doctrine
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1997

Pierson v. SMS Financial II, L.L.C.

SMS Financial II sued Donald Pierson and Kenneth L. Ross on a promissory note after a series of assignments and a foreclosure, seeking the balance due. The note originated in 1982 with Bank of Longview and was eventually acquired by SMS Financial II through the FDIC. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to SMS Financial II, establishing its standing, ruling against the statute of limitations defense, and barring Pierson and Ross's affirmative defenses and counterclaims under the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine. A jury then awarded SMS Financial II damages, attorney's fees, and interest. Pierson and Ross appealed, raising nine points of error concerning the statute of limitations, summary judgment rulings, evidence admissibility, and the finality of the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's misnomer did not bar the claim and the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine properly applied to bar the defendants' contentions.

Promissory NoteStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentD'Oench, Duhme DoctrineMisnomerMisidentificationJudicial AdmissionsAppellate ProcedureForeclosureAffirmative Defenses
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 1,881 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