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. 13-17-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

American Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Co-Trustee of the John Buckley Jr. Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust, Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, Together With John Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Kinard, as Trustee, Co-Trustee and/or Trust Beneficiaries of the John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, and/or Shareholders v. Moorehead Oil & Gas, Inc., Moorehead Acquisition, LLC, and Moorehead Oil & Gas, LLC

This is an appeal regarding a summary judgment in a proceeding to determine the fair value of ownership interests in corporate stock under the Texas Business Organizations Code. Appellants, consisting of American Bank, N.A. as trustee, and the Buckley family members (John J. Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Rose Kinard) as co-trustees and/or beneficiaries of their trusts, challenged the denial of their petition for stock valuation against Moorehead Oil & Gas entities. The key arguments on appeal were whether the Bank was the sole entity capable of requesting a valuation and if the limitations period was tolled due to the misnomer doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Lisa Marie Buckley's claim as a beneficiary due to lack of standing, but reversed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that the first amended petition related back to the timely-filed original petition for limitations purposes and that American Bank, John J. Buckley Jr., and Kelly Rose Kinard had standing as trustees or co-trustees. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentCorporate Stock ValuationDissenting Shareholder RightsTexas Business Organizations CodeTrusts and TrusteesBeneficiary StandingLimitations PeriodMisnomer DoctrineAppellate ProcedureFair Value Appraisal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. Cunningham

The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor initiated this action against members of the Administrative Committee of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) of Metropolitan Contract Services, Inc. (MCS), alleging violations of ERISA. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed fiduciaries breached their duties by causing the ESOP to purchase MCS stock from Defendant Cunningham for more than adequate consideration and engaging in prohibited transactions. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants acted in good faith, reasonably relied on an independent appraisal, and that the stock was purchased for no more than adequate consideration. Consequently, all claims brought by the Department of Labor were dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The court also ordered the Department of Labor to pay the defendants' attorney's fees and costs, and awarded fees to Allied Bank of Texas against Defendant Cunningham.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanStock ValuationProhibited TransactionsAdequate ConsiderationIndemnification AgreementsAttorney's FeesClosely Held CorporationsDepartment of Labor Litigation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2018

Kindle v. Dejana

Plaintiffs, participants in the Atrium Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), initiated a class action, alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties and violated ERISA in connection with the valuation and sale of ESOP assets. After extensive litigation, including cross-motions for summary judgment and a bench trial, the parties agreed to a Special Master's neutral valuation, which led to a substantial recovery of over $1.4 million for the class. Subsequently, Plaintiff Michael Brewley moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The court partially granted and partially denied this motion, ultimately awarding over $955,000 in attorneys' fees, nearly $103,000 in costs, and a $10,000 service award to the named plaintiff.

ERISAEmployee Stock Ownership PlanFiduciary DutyClass ActionAttorneys FeesCostsClass Representative AwardLodestar MethodFee Shifting StatuteStipulated Agreement
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2002

Conigliaro v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) and Building Maintenance Service LLC, dismissing the personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision. Against NYSE, the court found the plaintiff to be a special employee, which barred the action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. For Building Maintenance Service LLC, the court determined there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawPremises LiabilityAppellate DecisionAffirmationNotice RequirementKings CountyNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Papyrus Technology Corp. sued New York Stock Exchange, Inc. for patent infringement and breach of contract related to wireless device patents. The NYSE counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment and moved to disqualify Papyrus's counsel, Mr. Tedd Van Buskirk and his firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug. NYSE alleged Van Buskirk had access to confidential NYSE information while previously an associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, which represents NYSE. The court found that Van Buskirk must be disqualified due to his prior exposure to NYSE confidences. However, the court denied the disqualification of Frommer, finding that the firm's timely erected and effective screening measures adequately isolated Van Buskirk and prevented the imputation of his disqualification to the entire firm.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestLegal EthicsImputed DisqualificationScreening MechanismsPatent InfringementBreach of ContractConfidential InformationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFormer Representation
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 247 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