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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. 13-15-00506-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2015

Scripps NP Operating, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company, Successor in Interest to Scripps Texas Newspapers, LP D/B/A Corpus Christi Caller-Times and the E.W. Scripps Company v. Terry Carter

This case is an interlocutory appeal of a denied motion for summary judgment in a libel lawsuit. Appellants Scripps NP Operating, LLC, and The E.W. Scripps Company are being sued by Appellee Terry Carter, former president and CEO of the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce, over 25 articles published in 2008. The articles reported on alleged financial and management irregularities during Carter's tenure, including shifted funds and deferred salary, which led to a stated profit instead of a deficit. Appellants argue that the articles were not defamatory, were substantially true, constituted non-actionable opinion, or were privileged fair reports of judicial proceedings and public meetings, and were published without negligence or actual malice.

LibelDefamationAppellate LawSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentMedia LawJournalism StandardsFinancial IrregularitiesChamber of CommerceEmployment Dispute
References
50
Case No. 06-0714
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2010

Barbara Robinson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of John Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether Chapter 149 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits successor liability for asbestos claims, violates the state's prohibition against retroactive laws. Petitioner Barbara Robinson sued Crown Cork & Seal Co. for asbestos exposure that led to her husband John's mesothelioma. The trial court granted summary judgment for Crown under Chapter 149, which the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Chapter 149 unconstitutionally retroactively impaired the Robinsons' common-law claims, as the public interest served was slight compared to the significant impact on their vested rights.

Asbestos LitigationSuccessor LiabilityRetroactive LawTexas ConstitutionVested RightsPolice PowerMesotheliomaStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTort Reform
References
35
Case No. 03-04-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

Rosemarie Satterfield, as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment concerning the constitutionality of a state statute on asbestos-related successor liability. Appellant Rosemarie Satterfield, representing the Estate of Jerrold Braley, sought damages for asbestos exposure against appellee Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. The district court had granted summary judgment to Crown Cork based on a newly enacted statute limiting successor asbestos liabilities, which was applied retroactively. The Court of Appeals found that the statute violated Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution by retroactively destroying vested common law tort claims without providing a grace period. The court concluded that an accrued and pending common law cause of action is a vested right, which the Legislature cannot eliminate in this manner. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Asbestos litigationSuccessor liabilityRetroactive lawsVested rightsTexas ConstitutionPolice powerSummary judgmentConstitutional lawCommon law tortMesothelioma
References
135
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Quest Management, L.L.C. and Odyssey OneSource, Inc. v. Robbie Shaw

Robbie Shaw sued E-Quest Management, LLC and Odyssey OneSource, Inc. for successor liability after her previous employer, Retirement Living Management, Inc. (RLM), went bankrupt, leaving an unpaid judgment for race discrimination. The trial court found E-Quest and Odyssey liable as successors-in-interest. On appeal, E-Quest and Odyssey argued that Texas law precludes implied successor liability. The appellate court reviewed Texas statutes (Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 10.254 and former article 5.10 of the Texas Business Corporations Act) which generally require express assumption of liabilities. The court distinguished federal common law successor liability (under Title VII) from Texas statutory law. It concluded that Texas law expressly abrogates doctrines like 'mere continuation' for imposing implied successor liability. Since E-Quest and Odyssey did not expressly assume RLM's liabilities, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in their favor.

Successor LiabilityCorporate LawAsset AcquisitionEmployment DiscriminationTexas Business Organizations CodeTitle VIITCHRAStatutory InterpretationCommon LawCorporate Nonliability Rule
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKee v. American Transfer and Storage

Plaintiff Billy McKee sued AAA American Moving & Storage Co. (AAA) for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a state claim of wrongful termination, asserting successor liability against AAA for the actions of its predecessor, American Transfer and Storage. McKee claimed he was injured while working for American Transfer, filed a worker's compensation claim, and was subsequently terminated and denied reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA. AAA filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing against successor liability under Texas law. The Court granted AAA’s motion regarding the state claim with leave to amend, finding no express assumption of liability by AAA. However, the Court denied the motion concerning the federal ADA claim, applying Title VII's successor liability principles, which recognize such claims under specific factors to protect employees during ownership changes.

Americans with Disabilities ActSuccessor LiabilityMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationWorker's Compensation ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationCorporate LawDisability Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
Case No. 09-CV-4253
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2012

Lyons v. Rienzi & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Kelly Lyons, a seafarer, sued Rienzi & Sons, Inc. after allegedly slipping and falling on the deck of the yacht 'Brianna' due to a design defect, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Rienzi then filed a third-party complaint against the yacht's manufacturer, Genmar Yacht Group, LLC, and its alleged successor, Marquis Yachts, LLC, for product liability. Lyons subsequently brought his own claims against the third-party defendants. Marquis moved for summary judgment, contending it was not directly liable and had not assumed Genmar's liabilities due to an asset purchase in bankruptcy. The court granted Marquis's motion, finding that successor liability principles under federal common law and New York law did not apply, thereby dismissing claims against Marquis.

Successor LiabilityAdmiralty LawJones ActProducts LiabilityBankruptcy SaleSummary JudgmentFederal Common LawDe Facto MergerMere Continuation DoctrineForum Selection Clause
References
46
Case No. 14-04-00658-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2006

Barbara Robinson, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of John Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.

This appeal examines the Legislature's power to limit individual rights, specifically regarding successor corporate liability for asbestos-related claims. Barbara and John Robinson sued Crown Cork & Seal Company after Mr. Robinson contracted mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure, with Crown Cork admitting liability. However, newly enacted House Bill 4 retroactively limited successor corporations' asbestos liability, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment for Crown Cork. Mrs. Robinson appealed, challenging the statute's constitutionality on grounds of retroactivity and being a special law, and arguing that Crown Cork failed to establish its affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, deeming the statute a valid exercise of the state's police power, not an unconstitutional special law, and finding Crown Cork had successfully proven its defense.

Asbestos LitigationSuccessor LiabilityRetroactive LegislationSpecial LawsPolice PowerTexas ConstitutionMesotheliomaSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstitutional Challenges
References
75
Showing 1-10 of 5,237 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