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

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
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

In re AMR Corp.

This case addresses two motions filed by the Movants (comprising various unions and financial institutions) against the Debtors (reorganized debtors of AMR Corp.) seeking to enforce specific terms of the Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan. The core dispute revolves around whether the Movants are entitled to 'true-up payments' in the form of additional stock shares beyond what they already received. The Movants argued that their initial stock distributions were reduced by taxes from the Disputed Claims Reserve, resulting in fewer shares than those received by claimants whose claims were allowed on the Effective Date. They contend the Plan is share-based, aiming for equal share distribution per $1,000 of allowed claims. Conversely, the Debtors argued the Plan is value-based, asserting that the Movants had already received full value due to stock appreciation and that excess funds should benefit junior equity holders. The Court ultimately sided with the Movants, interpreting the Plan as share-based and concluding that the true-up provision in Section 7.4(b) aims to equalize the number of shares received, consistent with bankruptcy principles of equal treatment for claims within the same class. The Debtors' value-based interpretation and 'deemed tax' argument were rejected.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanTrue-Up PaymentsStock DistributionsDisputed ClaimsTaxationContract InterpretationEqual Treatment PrincipleAbsolute Priority RuleClaimant Recovery
References
53
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
Nov 30, 2001

In Re Dibiase

The case involves a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, Gregory Dibiase, and trustee Helen G. Schwartz. The central issue is the exemptability and turnover of employee stock options granted to Dibiase by Tesoro Petroleum Corporation. Dibiase claimed the options as exempt under the federal "wild card" provision, valuing them at zero. The trustee objected, arguing the options had value and were property of the estate. The court rejected Dibiase's argument that the options had not "vested" and therefore had no value, asserting that Texas law recognizes stock options as present property interests even if subject to future contingencies. The court also rejected the Allen allocation formula, which sought to exclude a portion of the options based on post-petition efforts, finding it legally flawed. Ultimately, the court sustained the trustee's objection to exemptions, concluding the entire option belonged to the estate, but granted turnover only for the proportion the trustee had specifically pleaded for.

BankruptcyStock OptionsExemptionsTurnoverProperty of the EstateWild Card ExemptionVested RightsConditions PrecedentConditions SubsequentChapter 7
References
38
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

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. National Development & Research Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a legal malpractice lawsuit where National Development and Research Corporation (NDR) sued Akin Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. for negligence in an underlying lawsuit. The jury found Akin Gump negligent and awarded damages. Akin Gump appealed, challenging the collectibility of the judgment, the fair market value of Pan-Sino stock, and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on stock value and collectibility but reversed the award for attorney's fees, reducing the total damages. The court also denied Akin Gump's request to offset the damages by a contingency fee.

Legal MalpracticeDamagesAttorney's FeesContingency FeeStock ValuationCollectibility of JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawPan-Sino Stock
References
62
Case No. E2002-01340-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2003

Precision Electric v. State

This case concerns an appeal arising from an accident between a truck owned by Precision Electric Company, Inc. (Claimant) and a vehicle owned by the State of Tennessee. The Claimant sought $19,845 in compensatory damages from the Tennessee Claims Commission for diminution in value of its truck and lost net profits. The Administrative Law Judge awarded only $2,217 for a wrecker bill and interest, finding the Claimant failed to provide sufficient proof for other damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings regarding the insufficiency of proof for diminution in value, rental expenses, and lost profits. The case was remanded for the collection of costs.

Truck AccidentCompensatory DamagesDiminution in ValueLost ProfitsBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessEvidence SufficiencyRental ExpensesAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
11
Case No. 13-00-241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson, Michelle and Soila Valdez

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment from a jury trial involving Waste Disposal Center, Inc. as appellant and Michelle Larson and Soila Valdez as appellees. Waste Disposal appealed the jury's award of actual damages for diminution in market value and mental anguish, and exemplary damages. The court found sufficient evidence for diminution in market value for both appellees' properties but reversed the mental anguish damages awarded to Valdez, citing a lack of evidence for severe mental pain. Furthermore, the court upheld the award of exemplary damages, as actual property damages were sustained. Cross-appellants (landowners including Valdez) appealed the dismissal of their suit against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the trial court's failure to charge the jury on strict liability, both of which were affirmed or deemed waived by the appellate court. Finally, Valdez's constitutional challenge to the exemplary damages cap was rejected, with the court affirming its constitutionality under both the open courts provision and separation of powers doctrine.

Property DamageExemplary DamagesMental AnguishDiminution in Market ValueStrict LiabilityJurisdictionEstate LiabilityOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Brunswick Corp.

This case addresses whether shareholders of a target company, ICO, can sue an acquiring company, Brunswick, for damages resulting from the diminution of stock value due to an alleged breach of a Merger Agreement. The majority shareholders intervened in ICO's lawsuit against Brunswick, but the trial court struck their petition, ruling they were not intended third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce the agreement, based on a clause stating the agreement was "not intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies hereunder." On appeal, the court examined the Merger Agreement and a related Shareholder Agreement, concluding that the shareholders were indeed intended third-party beneficiaries and the exclusionary clause did not apply to them, as they were integral participants in the merger. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Merger AgreementShareholder RightsThird-Party BeneficiaryBreach of ContractStock Value DiminutionInterventionAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationCorporate LawAnticipatory Breach
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 654 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