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

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2003

In re the Claim of Burdick

The claimant, a model builder for Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. in Rochester, Monroe County, voluntarily participated in a retirement incentive program and separated from employment on November 1, 2002. Valeo had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and was approved to move its compressor production operations to Mexico, leading to a reduction in its labor force. Following his separation, the claimant applied for a trade readjustment allowance under the federal Trade Act of 1974. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his application, ruling that his separation was for a reason other than lack of work. The appeal ensued, and the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it rational based on testimony that the claimant had sufficient seniority and would not have been among those involuntarily eliminated had he not elected the incentive program.

Trade Readjustment AllowanceUnemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationSeniorityBankruptcyWorkforce ReductionAppellate ReviewTrade Act of 1974Employment LawNew York State
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1989

Marroquin v. American Trading Transportation Co.

Plaintiff Edmundo S. Marroquin was injured on November 8, 1985, while cleaning a cargo tank aboard the S.S. Washington Trader on the high seas. Marroquin was employed by third-party defendant Stevens Technical Services and the vessel was owned by defendant and third-party plaintiff American Trading Transportation Company. Marroquin initially sued American Trading for negligence and later added a cause of action for unseaworthiness. American Trading then instituted a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Stevens. Stevens moved for summary judgment, arguing that Marroquin's unseaworthiness claim was barred by the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), which would also dismiss American Trading's third-party action. The court denied Stevens' motion, finding that Marroquin was not covered by the LHWCA because he was the equivalent of a 'member of a crew' working on the high seas, not a land-based worker in port. Additionally, the LHWCA's geographical scope does not extend to injuries on the high seas during a long international voyage. Therefore, Marroquin could maintain his unseaworthiness claim, and American Trading could seek contribution or indemnification from Stevens.

Maritime LawUnseaworthiness ClaimLHWCA InapplicabilityHigh Seas InjurySeaman StatusThird-Party ActionSummary Judgment MotionVessel Cleaning CrewContribution and Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Exxon Corp.

Plaintiff Brewer filed a lawsuit against Exxon Corporation alleging breach of contract and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Brewer, an Exxon employee, claimed she was promised a dealership and that her management role was a precondition to an eventual franchise. Exxon later converted the store to a franchise, but Brewer did not acquire it, as it was sold to another individual who was required to purchase two stores. The court analyzed whether the PMPA applied to the relationship between the parties, noting that the Act is intended to cover existing franchise relationships and protect independent dealers who have invested time and money, not preliminary negotiations or mere employees. Finding that Brewer was an employee and did not bear the entrepreneurial risk indicative of a franchisee, the court granted summary judgment to Exxon, dismissing Brewer's claim under the PMPA, while suggesting she might have other common law or statutory remedies.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise AgreementEmployee RightsSummary JudgmentContract DisputeTitle VII ClaimMotor Fuel DistributionStatutory InterpretationBusiness RelationshipsEntrepreneurial Risk
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal States Trading, Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Corp.

This case involves Coastal States Trading, Inc. suing Shell Pipe Line Corporation for damages due to an alleged misdelivery of crude oil. Coastal States asserted that Shell breached duties under the Interstate Commerce Act and Pomerene Bills of Lading Act, or alternatively, committed conversion or negligence. Shell contended the federal statutes did not confer subject matter jurisdiction as they are inapplicable to oil pipelines and Shell's 'in-line transfer' record-keeping service does not constitute 'transportation.' The court examined the historical context and mechanics of 'in-line transfers' of crude oil rights. Ultimately, the District Court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the federal acts do not apply to oil pipelines or the described services, and dismissed the common law claims without prejudice.

Oil TransportationInterstate CommercePomerene Bills of LadingFederal JurisdictionCrude Oil TradingPipeline OperationsCommon CarriersContract BreachTort LawDismissal With Prejudice
References
15
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2011

State of Tennessee, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company

This case involves the State of Tennessee suing NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company, a foreign tobacco product manufacturer, for failing to make required escrow deposits under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Sumatra due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, concluding that Sumatra had sufficient minimum contacts with the state through its intentional nationwide distribution system. The court found that Sumatra purposefully availed itself of the Tennessee market and that exercising personal jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Escrow Fund Act against Sumatra's affirmative defenses, remanding the case for the calculation of escrow funds owed by Sumatra.

Personal JurisdictionTobacco Escrow Fund ActMinimum ContactsStream of CommerceForeign CorporationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Statutes
References
133
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 7,921 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