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

Ryen v. Terry (In Re Terry)

The trustee, Louis A. Ryen, initiated an adversary proceeding against debtor Elizabeth A. Terry to compel the turnover of a $51,000 workers' compensation settlement received post-petition for a pre-petition industrial accident. The debtor had attempted to exempt these funds improperly. The settlement proceeds were held in part as treasury bills by the debtor and in part by her mother, Bertha Terry, as a bailment. The court ruled that these funds constituted property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) and were beneficial to the estate. Consequently, the court granted the trustee's request for immediate turnover of the funds.

BankruptcyTurnoverWorkers' CompensationPost-Petition SettlementProperty of the EstateDebtor's ExemptionsAdversary ProceedingBailmentTrustee's PowersFederal Bankruptcy Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shanequa Terry v. State

Appellant Shanequa Terry appeals her conviction for aggregate theft, stemming from her applications for and receipt of food stamps. Terry was charged with unlawfully appropriating food stamps by failing to report income from two employers, Bargain Network and Pubsco, to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission during the periods of May 2007 through March 2008, and November 2009 through December 2009. An investigation revealed she received $3,026 more in benefits than she was entitled to. A jury found Terry guilty, and she was sentenced to 180 days’ confinement in state jail, probated for two years. Terry challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction and asserts the trial court violated her Confrontation Clause rights by admitting generic worksheets compiled by caseworkers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient for conviction and concluding that the generic worksheets were not testimonial statements, thus not violating the Confrontation Clause.

Aggregate TheftFood Stamp FraudSNAP BenefitsWelfare FraudDeceptionSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation ClauseTestimonial StatementsBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Appeal
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terry v. Southern Floral Co.

Deborah M. Terry appealed a summary judgment in favor of Southern Floral Company in a worker's compensation retaliation case. Terry, a salesperson, suffered multiple work injuries and filed compensation claims, returning to work after earlier incidents. After a back injury in October 1993, she was restricted from work by her doctor in February 1994 and was eventually terminated in August 1994 due to extended absence. Southern offered her first preference for any available opening once she was released. The court found that Southern Floral Company provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination, consistent with precedent. Terry failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive, thus affirming the trial court's summary judgment.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawAbsence Control PolicyCausal LinkLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonBurden of ProofTexas Labor CodeEmployer Retaliation
References
17
Case No. 01-13-00923-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2014

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey v. Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey appealed the dismissal of their claims against Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey, which arose from the conveyance of real property. Virginia and John had sold property to their son Frank and his wife Terry, then later sued to set aside the conveyance, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Frank and Terry asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Virginia and John's claims, then reinstated Frank and Terry's counterclaims, and subsequently dismissed Virginia and John's claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Virginia and John failed to properly assign error to the final judgment (the June 24th dismissal for want of prosecution) and did not preserve their argument for appellate review, nor provide evidence meeting the Craddock standard.

Real PropertyProperty ConveyanceFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConspiracy to Commit FraudBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceDismissal of ClaimsWant of ProsecutionAppellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. 13-11-00699-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2012

Rafael Humberto Flores Jr. v. Kelly Melanie Terry

Rafael Humberto Flores Jr. appealed the trial court's decision to grant a new trial to Kelly Melanie Terry following a default divorce judgment. Terry had filed a motion for new trial, asserting her failure to file an answer was due to a mistake, specifically Flores's misrepresentation, rather than intentional or conscious indifference. She further claimed a meritorious defense concerning child custody and that a new trial would not injure Flores. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas reviewed the trial court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard, applying the three-pronged Craddock test. Finding that Terry had satisfied all elements of the test, the appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentNew TrialCraddock TestChild CustodyDivorceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPro Se LitigantMeritorious DefenseRemand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terry v. Chi. Bridge & Iron Co.

This case involves plaintiffs seeking overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from various entities operating as CB & I. Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Terry initially filed an administrative wage claim with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) under the Texas Labor Code and was awarded unpaid wages. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, arguing that Terry's FLSA claim was barred by collateral estoppel due to the TWC's prior decision. They also moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court denied both motions, reasoning that the TWC lacked jurisdiction over FLSA claims, and thus collateral estoppel did not apply to Terry's FLSA claim for overtime wages or liquidated damages, as the TWC's 'bad faith' standard for penalties differed from the FLSA's liquidated damages provision. The court also found no reason to strike the amended complaint.

FLSAOvertime CompensationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataSummary JudgmentTexas Payday LawAmended ComplaintJurisdictionUnpaid WagesLiquidated Damages
References
20
Case No. E2001-02090-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2002

Kelso Oil v. East West Truck Stop

This appeal centers on an Unconditional Guaranty signed by Frank Webb, president and owner of East West Truck Stop, Inc., guaranteeing the company's debt to Kelso Oil Company, Inc. The primary dispute involved whether the trial court improperly used parol evidence to identify the 'buyer' in the guaranty as the corporate entity, rather than 'Frank Webb d/b/a East West Truck Stop', which Webb argued violated the Statute of Frauds. Webb also contested the finding of adequate consideration and the dismissal of a counterclaim alleging usurious late charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the 'buyer' was sufficiently identified as the corporate entity, thereby preventing the guaranty from being an 'exercise in futility'. The court also found sufficient consideration for the guaranty and upheld the dismissal of the usury counterclaim.

GuarantyStatute of FraudsParol EvidenceCorporate DebtPersonal LiabilityForbearanceConsiderationUsuryLate ChargesContract Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beck v. LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN J. TERRY, JR.

This appeal concerns a lawsuit brought by Gary G. Beck and his companies against his former divorce attorneys for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, DTPA violations, and breach of contract. Beck alleged that the attorneys improperly advised him during his divorce settlement, including corporate assets in the property division, and failed to disclose a conflict of interest and attorney Terry's alleged alcohol/substance abuse. The district court granted summary judgment on the non-negligence claims, deeming them

Professional NegligenceLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyDTPA ViolationsBreach of ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipConflict of InterestAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseDivorce Settlement
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 472 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