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

Lavender v. Hofer

This personal injury case originated from an intersection collision resulting in the death of June Hofer. The initial defendant, Robert W. Springate, passed away, leading to his daughter, Sharon Lavender, being substituted as his personal representative. The core issues on appeal involved the recovery of punitive damages against the deceased tort-feasor's estate and the appellees' (June Hofer's parents) entitlement to damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The appellate court determined that punitive damages are not recoverable against a deceased tort-feasor's estate, reasoning that the purposes of punishment and deterrence cease upon death. However, the court affirmed the award for mental anguish and loss of companionship, citing a recent Texas Supreme Court decision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSurvival StatuteMental AnguishLoss of CompanionshipDeceased Tort-feasor EstateAppellate ReviewDamages Award
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. M2016-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2018

Cynthia M. Kanka v. Christopher Kanka

This appeal arises from a judgment of divorce and an award of damages in tort. The trial court granted Cynthia Kanka an absolute divorce from Christopher Kanka, full custody of their minor child, and set child support based on Christopher's earning capacity, finding him willfully and voluntarily underemployed. The court also divided marital property and awarded Cynthia alimony in futuro and alimony in solido (attorney's fees). Additionally, the court granted Cynthia a judgment for compensatory damages on her tort claim (assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress), which included counseling costs and pain and suffering for herself and her daughter. On appeal, Christopher challenged the underemployment determination, marital residence valuation, alimony awards, and the tort damages. The Court of Appeals vacated the award of damages to Cynthia for her child's pain and suffering, but affirmed all other aspects of the trial court's decision.

Divorce LawChild SupportAlimonySpousal SupportTort ClaimsDomestic ViolenceUnderemploymentMarital PropertyAppellate ReviewEarning Capacity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P.

This case addresses the proper method for compensating a landowner for the destruction of trees on their property. Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. (Wheeler) sued Enbridge Pipelines, L.P. (Enbridge) for breach of contract and trespass after Enbridge destroyed several hundred feet of trees while constructing a pipeline, violating an agreement to use an underground boring method. The Texas Supreme Court clarifies the application of the temporary-versus-permanent injury distinction to real property damages, holding it applies to both tort and contract claims and is a question of law for the court. The Court confirms two exceptions to general damage rules: the economic feasibility exception, deeming the injury permanent due to restoration costs significantly exceeding market value diminution, and the intrinsic value of trees exception, allowing recovery for ornamental and utilitarian value even with nominal market value loss. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to address remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

Real Property DamagesBreach of ContractTrespassTree DestructionTemporary vs. Permanent InjuryDamages CalculationEconomic Feasibility ExceptionIntrinsic Value of TreesAppellate ReviewJury Instructions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. Beale Street Blues Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Donald and Erma Alexander sued officers Mike Jones and Robert Whipple, the Memphis Police Department, the City of Memphis, and Beale Street Blues Company, Inc., alleging their son Jeffrey Alexander died in July 1997 due to their actions. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, state tort law, and the Tennessee Constitution. The court denied the officers' motions to dismiss for § 1983 and state tort claims but granted their motions regarding Tennessee Constitution claims. It dismissed the Memphis Police Department, granted some motions for the City of Memphis (negligence, TN Constitution, § 1983 ratification), but denied others regarding its § 1983 liability. Finally, the court dismissed claims for hedonic damages, punitive damages against the City, and plaintiffs' individual injury claims, while allowing loss of consortium damages under state tort law, but not under § 1983.

Civil RightsExcessive ForceUnlawful SeizureQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityState Tort ClaimsWrongful DeathHedonic DamagesPunitive DamagesLoss of Consortium
References
68
Case No. M2006-02660-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2008

David Goff, et ux v. Elmo Greer & Sons Construction Co., Inc.

The Goffs, homeowners in Sparta, Tennessee, sued Elmo Greer & Sons Construction Company for various claims including breach of contract, property damage from blasting, and creating a nuisance by burying waste on their land during a highway widening project. While the jury awarded compensatory damages for contract breach, blasting, and nuisance, it declined to find the company liable for an environmental tort, yet still imposed punitive damages. The trial court remitted the punitive damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed and remanded the punitive damages award, instructing the lower court to reconsider it based solely on the nuisance claim, as the environmental tort claim was rejected by the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions and the denial of a mistrial motion.

Punitive DamagesNuisance ClaimBreach of ContractProperty DamageBlasting DamageWaste DisposalEnvironmental TortJury InstructionRemittiturAppellate Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 4,782 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