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

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huff v. CRUZ CONTRACTING CORP.

Plaintiff Adrian Huff, as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Teamsters Local 445 Funds, sued Defendant Cruz Contracting Corp. under LMRA and ERISA, seeking late fees for untimely contribution payments. The case involved cross-motions for summary judgment regarding statutory and contractual damages. Magistrate Judge Smith recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for damages and granting the defendant's cross-motion on statutory damages. The District Court adopted the R&R, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on both statutory and contractual damages and granting the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for Section 1132(g)(2) damages, as all delinquent contributions were paid prior to the lawsuit.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsStatutory DamagesContractual DamagesSummary JudgmentPension FundsWelfare FundsAnnuity Funds
References
37
Case No. 14-35443
Regular Panel Decision

In re Weidenbenner

The Debtors initiated a motion alleging that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay by placing an administrative freeze on their bank accounts after they filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This freeze led to a bounced check and a $25 penalty. The court ruled that Wells Fargo's administrative freeze was indeed a willful violation of the automatic stay, rejecting the bank's arguments regarding compliance with turnover provisions or set-off rights. Furthermore, the court found that the Debtors had constitutional and statutory standing to pursue damages. As a result, the Debtors were awarded $25.00 in actual damages, along with costs and attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StayStay ViolationAdministrative FreezeWells FargoChapter 7Damages AwardedWillful ViolationTurnover ProvisionDebtor Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giannetti v. Darling Delaware Carting Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe burns while employed at Arby's. During the damages phase of the trial, the defendant sought to introduce safety gloves as evidence to mitigate damages, arguing that their use would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The plaintiff objected, contending that such evidence was improper for the damages phase and that 'seat belt' precedents were not applicable due to the lack of a statutory mandate for safety gloves. The court, drawing an analogy to seat belt cases, ruled that safety gloves could be admitted as evidence for mitigation of damages if the defendant proves their availability, the reasonableness of their use, and a causal link between non-use and injuries. This decision effectively allows the introduction of pre-accident conduct to mitigate damages in certain circumstances beyond statutory mandates.

Mitigation of DamagesSafety GlovesSeat Belt DefensePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityPre-accident ConductEmployer LiabilityReasonable Prudent Person StandardTort Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownsville Pediatric Ass'n v. Reyes

This medical malpractice case involves appellants Dr. Gloria Medina and Brownsville Pediatric Association, who were sued by Jaime Reyes on behalf of his son, Juan Pablo Reyes. Juan Pablo, born prematurely in 1978, suffered severe neurological impairments, including blindness and spastic paraplegia, which a jury found were proximately caused by Dr. Medina's negligence during his care as a newborn. The jury awarded over $8,000,000 in damages, primarily for future medical care. On appeal, the appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding medical causation and damages, several evidentiary rulings concerning the injection of insurance and prior lawsuits, and the imposition of prejudgment interest against Brownsville Pediatric Association. They also argued that the damage award violated a statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on negligence and causation, the damage award, the trial court's evidentiary decisions, and the prejudgment interest calculation. The court also ruled that the statutory damage cap was unconstitutional, aligning with prior Texas Supreme Court decisions.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesPrejudgment InterestStatutory CapSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyVentilation Management
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2001

De Leon v. Trevino

Three farm workers, Armando DeLeon, Romero DeLeon, and Benigno Gomez, sued their employer, Mario Trevino, for unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for statutory damages under the Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA). The plaintiffs worked for three days harvesting okra in May 1994 but were never paid. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court adopted this recommendation, finding Trevino liable for unpaid wages and liquidated damages under FLSA, and statutory damages for four AWPA violations for each plaintiff. The court also awarded reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.

Summary JudgmentFLSAAWPAUnpaid WagesLiquidated DamagesFarm LaborAgricultural WorkersMinimum WageAttorney FeesStatutory Damages
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vail v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.

Chief Justice Phillips dissents from the court's opinion awarding treble damages to the Vails against Texas Farm. The dissent argues that the Vails failed to properly plead their claims and obtain necessary jury findings. It challenges the court's interpretation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Insurance Code, asserting that prior common law rulings do not create per se statutory violations for unfair settlement practices. Furthermore, Phillips contends that the 1979 version of the DTPA, which makes treble damages discretionary, should apply, and the Vails' failure to secure a special issue on damages precludes such an award. The dissent concludes that incorporating mandatory treble damages from the Insurance Code into the DTPA is an untenable statutory interpretation, advocating for the court of appeals' original judgment.

Treble DamagesDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance CodeUnfair Settlement PracticesGood Faith and Fair DealingStatutory InterpretationPleading RequirementsJury FindingsDiscretionary DamagesMandatory Damages
References
9
Case No. 2-09-062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2010

Christopher O'Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rebecca Wright

Rebecca W. Wright sued Christopher O’Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and constructive discharge. A jury awarded Wright $425,000 in mental anguish damages. O’Dell appealed, raising issues concerning disallowed witness testimony, Wright’s childhood abduction testimony, sufficiency of evidence for mental anguish damages, and the application of a statutory damages cap. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings and holding that the statutory cap was an affirmative defense O'Dell failed to plead and prove. The court found sufficient evidence to support the mental anguish awards.

Sexual HarassmentAssault and BatteryConstructive DischargeMental Anguish DamagesStatutory Damages CapAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsRelevance ObjectionSufficiency of EvidenceAffirmative Defense
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Upstate New York Bakery Drivers and Industry Pension Fund v. Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc.

Plaintiff, Upstate New York Bakery Drivers and Industry Pension Fund, brought an action against Defendant, Colony Liquor Distributors, Inc., under ERISA, seeking $12,610 in delinquent fringe benefit contributions, along with interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. The Court held oral argument on July 1, 1997, granting Plaintiff partial summary judgment for $10,494 in unpaid contributions, statutory interest, and liquidated damages, while denying Defendant's cross-motions. The remaining dispute concerned contributions for vacation leave from August 19, 1990, to December 31, 1991, which the Court resolved by granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, interpreting the collective bargaining agreement's Article XXII as unambiguously limiting contributions based on actual days worked. Consequently, the Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees and costs, adjusted from the initial request. The final judgment ordered the Defendant to pay a total of $40,595.76, encompassing delinquent contributions, statutory interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

ERISAPension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory InterestLiquidated DamagesNorthern District of New YorkVacation Contributions
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 7,194 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