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

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. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 14390(ASH). Adversary No. 00-3004A.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

In Re Higgins

The debtors, Kevin and Sue Higgins, initiated an adversary proceeding against creditor Eugene Erickson concerning the avoidability of mortgage and confession of judgment liens, usury claims, and Erickson's attempt to challenge debt dischargeability. The Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, ruled that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid pre-petition transfers as preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547. However, the court granted the Higginses' request to avoid the confession of judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), finding it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Higginses had waived their usury defense but held that Erickson's right to contest the dischargeability of his claim was time-barred. This resulted in a mixed outcome, largely favorable to the debtors regarding lien impairment and discharge.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionLien AvoidanceJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseConfession of JudgmentDischargeabilityEquitable TollingEquitable Estoppel
References
68
Case No. 01-18-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

IPFS Corporation v. Sue Ann Lopez

IPFS Corporation appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by Sue Ann Lopez. Lopez, a former IPFS sales representative, sought a declaratory judgment regarding non-solicitation agreements after joining a competitor. IPFS argued that Lopez's claim fell within the broad scope of their arbitration agreement, which covered 'all legal claims arising out of or relating to employment' with specific, narrow exclusions. The court analyzed the arbitration agreement's language, emphasizing the policy favoring arbitration and noting that Lopez's declaratory judgment, despite not seeking monetary damages, did not fall under the temporary equitable relief exception. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration and dismissing the case.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentNon-Solicitation AgreementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewEquitable ReliefScope of Arbitration
References
19
Case No. 14-09-00475-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

State v. Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for the 1985 murder of her husband. She sought dismissal due to a nearly 23-year prosecutorial delay, arguing due process violations, which the trial court granted. The State of Texas appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. The appellate court, applying the Fifth Circuit and Texas two-prong test, acknowledged substantial prejudice but found no evidence of intentional delay for an improper purpose. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, rejecting other grounds for dismissal such as effective assistance of counsel, right to testify, fair trial, and laches.

Pre-indictment DelayDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineMurder IndictmentAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo

This case involves an appeal brought by four villages and two residents of the Town of Ramapo challenging a local law enacted by the Town Board. The local law permits adult student living facilities in certain residential zones adjacent to the appellant villages. The appellants' combined petition asserted thirteen causes of action, primarily alleging the Town's failure to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), inconsistency with the Town's comprehensive plan, and procedural infirmities in the adoption of the local law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the amended petition, finding that the villages lacked legal capacity to sue and that all appellants lacked standing for various claims. The appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the villages had the capacity to sue and standing to assert claims under SEQRA and General Municipal Law § 239-m. The court also found that the resident appellants had standing for specific claims related to procedural compliance and consistency with the comprehensive plan. The case was ultimately remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of the reinstated causes of action.

Zoning LawLocal Law ChallengeEnvironmental ReviewSEQRAStanding to SueLegal Capacity to SueMunicipal Home Rule LawGeneral Municipal LawVillage LawTown Law
References
98
Case No. PD-1485-10
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

State of Texas v. Wilson, Carolyn Sue Krizan

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder 23 years after her husband's death. She filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay, which the trial court granted. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. This Court granted her petition for discretionary review, arguing the delay caused substantial prejudice and was for an impermissible purpose. This Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that while Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice, she failed to prove the delay was an intentional device for tactical advantage or other bad faith purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Pre-indictment delayDue process violationFifth AmendmentTactical advantageBad faithSubstantial prejudiceStandard of reviewAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewCriminal procedure
References
21
Case No. M2015-02155-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2016

Patricia Sue Kuhlo v. Ernest Charles Kuhlo

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divorce action between Patricia Sue Kuhlo and Ernest Charles Kuhlo. Husband appealed several rulings, including the denial of attorney assistance, valuation and division of a partnership interest, the sale of commercial real estate, and awards of transitional alimony and attorney's fees to the Wife. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decisions, noting the Husband was not indigent and had opportunities to secure counsel. Furthermore, the court upheld the valuation of the partnership interest due to Husband's failure to provide documentation, and affirmed the transitional alimony and attorney's fees for the Wife given her financial need and contributions. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed on all grounds.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimonyTransitional AlimonyAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewDiscretion of Trial CourtPartnership Interest ValuationSpecial MasterFair Market Value
References
44
Case No. 06-10-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2011

Kerri Sue Hass Culver v. Billy Ray Culver

The case involves an appeal by Kerri Sue Hass Culver (Appellant) against a protective order obtained by her husband, Billy Ray Culver (Appellee). Billy Ray sought the protective order alleging family violence and the likelihood of future family violence. The trial court granted the protective order, and Kerri appealed, raising nine points of error including insufficient evidence, refusal of discovery and continuance motions, ineffective assistance of counsel, application of the Brady rule, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of recusal motions, and failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding sufficient evidence of family violence and rejecting all of Kerri's points of error. The court found that Kerri's actions, such as attempting to run Billy off the road with her car and throwing a telephone at him, constituted family violence. The court also clarified that the modified judgments issued by the trial court were within its plenary power and did not require additional hearings under Chapter 87 of the Texas Family Code.

Protective OrderFamily ViolenceDomestic AbuseAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial DiscretionMotion for ContinuanceRecusalDue ProcessCivil Injunction
References
35
Case No. 03-95-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1996

J. H. Schlueter and Richard Stephen Schlueter v. Karen Sue Schlueter

This is an appeal from a divorce action. Richard Schlueter and J. H. Schlueter (Hudson) appealed a judgment against them for fraud and conspiracy against Karen Sue Schlueter and the community estate. The trial court had awarded damages for fraud related to the transfer of an emu business interest and handling of Richard's IBM incentive bonus, along with punitive damages. Appellants challenged the admission of 'other acts' evidence, the award of exemplary damages, and the disproportionate division of property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings, upholding the damages, and confirming the property division.

DivorceFraudConspiracyCommunity PropertyInterspousal ImmunityExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alongi v. McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc.

This case involves a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. The plaintiff, a longshoreman employed by Pittston Stevedoring Corp., sustained injuries in 1973 and subsequently accepted workers' compensation benefits paid by Pittston's insurer, Gulf Insurance Group. Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, acceptance of an award operates as an assignment of the employee's rights to sue a third party to the employer (or its insurer) if the employee fails to commence suit within six months. The plaintiff's failure to file within this period resulted in the statutory assignment of his rights to Gulf. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action, as Gulf is the proper party to sue. The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, allowing Gulf 30 days to commence its own action.

Personal injuryLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStandingAssignment of rightsSummary judgmentSubrogationThird-party actionGeneral Obligations LawInsurer's rightsEmployer liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,232 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