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

In Re Blue Diamond Coal Co.

This memorandum addresses the debtor's objection to a claim filed by the Southern Labor Union, Local No. 188, seeking damages allegedly arising from interim changes and subsequent rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under Chapter 11. The court considers procedural issues, finding the Union's amended claims timely and the Union having standing as a creditor. However, the core of the decision interprets Bankruptcy Code §§ 1113, 365, and 502(g). The court concludes that § 1113 removed collective bargaining agreements from the purview of § 365 and, crucially, from the damage provisions of § 502(g). Therefore, no statutory basis exists under the current Bankruptcy Code to allow claims for damages resulting from the rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under § 1113. Consequently, the debtor's objection is sustained, and the Union's claims are disallowed.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementClaim RejectionChapter 11Labor LawStatutory InterpretationBankruptcy Code Section 1113Creditor RightsExecutory ContractsDamages
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
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. WR 78,113-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Garza, Humberto

This document contains Applicant Humberto Garza's objections to the Convicting Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and its recommendation to deny habeas corpus relief. Garza seeks the withdrawal of the February 12, 2015 Order, the recusal of Judge Noe Gonzalez, and the assignment of a different judge or revised findings. The objections are rooted in concerns over alleged ex parte communications with the jury by the judge and bailiff, the court's adoption of the State's findings, and insufficient funding for case development. Additionally, Garza objects to the exclusion of expert reports diagnosing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and outlining its impact on his life.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusRecusal MotionJury MisconductEx Parte CommunicationJudicial ImpartialityFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderMitigation EvidenceCapital PunishmentDeath Penalty
References
76
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Messing

The debtor, Patrick F. Messing, sought to exempt his $6,365.45 interest in an ERISA-qualified pension benefit plan established by his employer, J.B.F. Associates, Inc. He claimed the exemption under both Tennessee law (Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-104(b)) and federal law (11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A)). The trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to both claims. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the Tennessee law claim, finding the state statute preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the trustee's objection to the federal law claim, concluding that ERISA § 206(d)(1) establishes a cognizable federal exemption. Therefore, the debtor's claim of exemption was granted under federal law but denied under state law.

ERISABankruptcyExemptionPension PlanEmployee BenefitsFederal PreemptionAnti-AlienationChapter 7Debtor's RightsTrustee Objection
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manzi v. Town of Riverhead

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged the Town Board of Riverhead's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regarding a temporary asphalt manufacturing facility. Petitioners alleged environmental harm and raised objections concerning standing, timeliness, and failure to join necessary parties. The Supreme Court largely denied the Town's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, dismissing the petition for two petitioners, Irving Walston, Jr., and Thomas Pipczynski, due to lack of standing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination that petitioner Richard Manzi had standing, the proceeding was timely, and the non-joined parties were not indispensable. The matter was severed for Richard Manzi and remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawStanding DoctrineStatute of LimitationsNecessary PartiesMunicipal Solid Waste LandfillAsphalt Manufacturing FacilityNegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Administrative Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,916 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