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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01591 [159 AD3d 787]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Bidnick v. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of N.Y.

Neal Bidnick, a long-standing member of the Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons, was expelled following Masonic trials, despite initial reversals by the Masonic Commission of Appeals. This action arose after the Grand Lodge reinstated a guilty finding at its annual meeting, leading to Bidnick's expulsion. Bidnick sued the Grand Lodge and individual defendants for breach of contract, alleging wrongful expulsion, and defamation, claiming false statements of misappropriation. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting the dismissal of the defamation claim against the Grand Lodge, denying dismissal of the defamation claim against individual defendants in their individual capacities, and denying the dismissal of the breach of contract claim. The court's decision addressed the application of Benevolent Orders Law and the _Martin_ rule concerning the liability of unincorporated associations and their members.

Breach of ContractDefamationExpulsionUnincorporated AssociationBenevolent Orders LawMasonic LodgeIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityCPLR 3211 (a) (7) MotionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cearley v. Cross Timbers Production Co.

Robert Cearley, an employee under the supervision of Cross Timbers, sustained a personal injury in January 1988 while working on a Cross Timbers oil and gas lease. He claimed Cross Timbers was negligent for not providing a ladder. This appeal concerns a take-nothing summary judgment granted to Cross Timbers, which argued the borrowed servant doctrine applied. The court examined whether Cearley was a regular employee of Crown Central or a borrowed servant of Cross Timbers at the time of the accident. The summary judgment was affirmed, as Cearley's pleading that Cross Timbers controlled his work constituted a judicial admission, establishing him as a borrowed servant under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, thereby insulating Cross Timbers from liability.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryTexas Workers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityControl TestJudicial AdmissionOil and Gas LeaseAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1988

Claim of Harvey v. Allegany Timber & Land Co.

Claimant, a logger, was severely injured while working for Allegany Timber & Land Company, Inc. The central issue on appeal was whether the claimant was an employee or an independent contractor at the time of injury. The Workers' Compensation Board found claimant to be an employee, based on evidence such as being supplied with a bulldozer, directed on tree cutting, and subject to discharge. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the resolution of such factual issues falls within the Board's exclusive fact-finding function, and there was substantial evidence to support its determination.

Workers' CompensationLogger InjuryEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceFactual IssueAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Machinists Lodge 1488 v. Downtown Employees Ass'n

This is an appeal regarding a temporary injunction granted by a trial court against the International Association of Machinists Lodge 1488 (Union) for picketing the premises of Downtown Chevrolet Company in Houston, Texas. The appellees, Downtown Employees Association and Downtown Chevrolet Company, had obtained an injunction restraining the Union from various picketing activities, even though the picketing was conducted peacefully. The Union appealed, arguing that the injunction was an abuse of discretion, violated their rights to free speech and assembly, and was granted in the absence of unlawful activities or damages. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, affirming that the contract between the Company and the Association was established before the picketing began. The court concluded that the injunction did not violate the Union's constitutional rights, as these rights are limited by the constitutional rights of the appellees, and that the picketing caused substantial economic loss. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court granting the temporary injunction was affirmed.

Temporary InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeFree SpeechAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional RightsAppellate ReviewUnion ActivitiesEmployer-Employee RelationsWork Stoppage
References
7
Case No. 06-09-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

George D. Solomon and Wife, Jini Solomon v. Perry Steitler, D/B/A North East Texas Land & Timber, Larry Bullard, and Tina Bullard

This case involves an appeal by George D. Solomon and Jini Solomon (Appellants) against Perry Steitler, d/b/a North East Texas Land & Timber, Larry Bullard, and Tina Bullard (Appellees). The dispute originated when a lake constructed by the Solomons, with Steitler as the contractor, flooded a portion of the Bullards' adjoining property, destroying trees. The jury found the Solomons liable for violating the Texas Water Code, negligence, and gross negligence, awarding actual and exemplary damages to the Bullards. Additionally, the jury awarded damages to Steitler for the Solomons' breach of contract. On appeal, the Solomons challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including punitive damages, loss of use damages, a directed verdict, a juror challenge, appellate attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, with a modification to explicitly condition the award of appellate attorney's fees on a successful appeal.

Property DisputeWater RightsFlooding DamageNegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesBreach of ContractDirected VerdictAppellate Attorneys' Fees
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Local Lodge 197, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers

The Secretary of Labor initiated this action against Local Lodge 197 for violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The contention was that Lodge 197 denied member Charles McNally a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate for union office due to an unreasonable meeting attendance rule. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment, first confirming McNally had exhausted internal remedies. It then determined that Lodge 197's attendance rule, which disqualified a significant portion of its membership, was an unreasonable qualification under section 401(e) of the Act. Consequently, the court granted the Secretary's motion, voided the election, and ordered a new election under federal supervision, simultaneously denying Lodge 197's cross-motion.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsSummary JudgmentEligibility RulesMeeting AttendanceLMRDAStatutory InterpretationDemocratic ProcessesUnion OfficeFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. 2017-07-0161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2017

Austin, James Keaton v American Land and Timber

The claimant, James Keaton Austin, suffered a traumatic amputation of his left thumb while working for American Land and Timber. The employer denied the claim, asserting Austin was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found Austin was likely an employee and ordered the employer to pay his medical expenses. American Land and Timber appealed this decision, arguing a lack of control over Austin's work. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported an employer-employee relationship based on factors such as the right to control, method of payment, and provision of tools.

Workers' CompensationEmployee vs Independent ContractorThumb AmputationSawmill InjuryExpedited HearingMedical ExpensesRight to ControlFurnishing Tools and EquipmentMethod of PaymentTennessee Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2013

Matter of Lodge v. Lodge

The father and mother, divorced parents, initially had joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the mother. Due to the mother's work schedule, the child spent considerable time with the father. The mother subsequently moved to Brooklyn and took the child, prompting the father to seek full custody, while the mother cross-petitioned for permission to relocate. Family Court awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father and specified visitation for the mother. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Family Court's ruling, concluding that the mother failed to prove that the proposed relocation was in the child's best interest and that the father demonstrated a superior ability to provide a stable environment.

CustodyRelocationBest Interest of ChildParental FitnessJoint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitationFamily Court AppealUlster CountyFinancial Stability
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 91 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