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. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. 87 Civ. 8085, 88 Civ. 4214, 90 Civ. 3473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

In re Asbestos Litigation

Plaintiffs in five separate asbestos tort actions moved to consolidate their claims for trial, citing common questions of law and fact under Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The cases involve deceased individuals who allegedly contracted mesothelioma and/or lung cancer from asbestos exposure. District Judge Sweet considered the established eight-factor test, including common worksites, similar occupations, overlapping exposure periods (1940-1986), the nature of the diseases, and common counsel. The court found substantial similarities among the cases, concluding that consolidation would achieve significant economy by eliminating repetitive testimony and facilitating a fairer comparison of worksites. Consequently, the motion to consolidate the five actions was granted.

Asbestos LitigationMass Toxic TortsConsolidation of ActionsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)MesotheliomaLung CancerCommon WorksiteSimilar OccupationTime of ExposureDeceased Plaintiffs
References
10
Case No. Index No. 116319/02; Index No. 401735/03; Index No. 116290/02; Index No. 121701/02; Index No. 103630/03
Regular Panel Decision

Daly v. Port Authority

This opinion consolidates 26 tort actions arising from the clearance of the World Trade Center site, primarily brought by demolition workers and a police officer alleging Labor Law violations. Defendants, including the City of New York and the Port Authority, asserted immunity under the New York State Defense Emergency Act (SDEA) and the Natural Disaster and Man-Made Disaster Preparedness Law. The court determined that SDEA immunity applied to injuries sustained up to September 29, 2001, the date the search for survivors concluded, considering this period as "essential debris clearance" under civil defense. Consequently, four specific actions (Feal, Hickey, Luge, Murphy) were dismissed. The court further analyzed immunity under Executive Law § 25 (5), concluding it grants immunity to the City for discretionary functions but does not exempt it from mandatory Labor Law duties.

World Trade CenterSeptember 11 AttacksTort ActionsStatutory ImmunityState Defense Emergency ActCivil DefenseLabor Law ViolationsWorksite AccidentsDebris ClearanceDiscretionary Function Immunity
References
42
Case No. 13-07-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2010

Eric J. Romero, ph.D. v. Odra Julieta Zapien A/K/A Odra J. Tort

This appeal arises from various orders regarding the divorce and child custody issues between Eric J. Romero and Odra J. Zapien in Hidalgo County, Texas. Romero, the appellant, challenged the trial court's decisions concerning child support, denial of joint physical possession, and awards of attorney's fees to Zapien. He also contested the lifting of a geographic restriction on Zapien's residence and the calculation of compensatory visitation. The appellate court largely affirmed the trial court's rulings, upholding the child support and attorney's fees awards, and the decision on joint physical possession. However, it reversed and remanded the issue of compensatory visitation, finding Romero was denied sufficient make-up time for denied access.

DivorceChild SupportChild CustodyGeographic RestrictionVisitation RightsAttorney's FeesIntentional UnderemploymentParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Terrell

This case addresses whether the State of Texas is liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for personal injuries caused by a highway patrol officer's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. James M. Terrell and Security National Insurance Company sued the State after Officer White's patrol car collided with Terrell's vehicle during a radar operation in Runnels County. The District Court granted summary judgment for the State, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, holding that the State is subject to liability if the officer's negligence occurred within the scope of employment and outside an emergency. The Court clarified that while policy-making decisions regarding police protection are immune, negligence in executing those policies can lead to liability under the Act.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental LiabilityPolice NegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationEmergency ExemptionPolicy DecisionsDiscretionary FunctionScope of Employment
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 975 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