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

S & D Trading Academy, LLC v. Aafis, Inc.

Plaintiffs S & D Trading Academy, LLC, and S & D Global Trading, Inc. (collectively, "S & D") brought an action against AAFIS, Inc., Helen Shih, and Marty Shih for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendant AAFIS filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, improper venue, and *forum non conveniens*, arguing that the case should be heard in China. The court found that AAFIS had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction for both claims, as the contract was negotiated, formed, and partially performed in Texas, and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets began in Texas. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would align with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, considering Texas's interest in the dispute and the convenience for the plaintiffs. Therefore, the court denied all of AAFIS's motions to dismiss.

Personal JurisdictionForum Non ConveniensBreach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationMotions to DismissMinimum ContactsDue ProcessSpecific JurisdictionService of ProcessImproper Venue
References
37
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

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2001

IBP, Inc. v. Klumpe

IBP, Inc. sued Steven M. Klumpe and his attorney Jeff Blackburn for misappropriation and theft of trade secrets, tortious interference, conversion, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract. Klumpe, an IBP superintendent, provided "Crewing Guides" containing IBP's alleged trade secrets to Blackburn, who then shared them with attorneys in a personal injury suit against IBP filed by Klumpe's stepson. Klumpe and Blackburn sought summary judgment, arguing litigation privilege and lack of evidence for IBP's claims, including commercial use of trade secrets and damages. The court affirmed summary judgment for Klumpe and Blackburn regarding the disclosure of the Guides and misappropriation of trade secrets, citing absolute privilege for communications in litigation. However, the court reversed and remanded other claims, including those related to Klumpe's alleged illegal taking of the Guides and Blackburn's potential complicity in a conspiracy to unlawfully obtain them, as these actions were not conclusively privileged.

Trade SecretsMisappropriationTheftLitigation PrivilegeAttorney LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDiscovery ProcessDocument Production
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myriad Development, Inc. v. Alltech, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Myriad Development, Inc. (Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant) and Alltech, Inc. (Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff) concerning three contracts: the APPRISE Agreement, AIMS Agreement, and Subcontract for Labor, as well as claims of trade secret misappropriation. Myriad alleged breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation, while Alltech filed counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion of photographs. The jury found Alltech materially breached the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements, and misappropriated Myriad's trade secrets. However, the Court, after review, ruled that Myriad could not recover lost profits for breach of the APPRISE and AIMS Agreements due to contract cancellation. The Court awarded Myriad $21,263 for unpaid amounts under the APPRISE Agreement, $198,110 for unpaid amounts under the Subcontract for Labor, and $250,000 in reasonable royalty for trade secret misappropriation. Alltech's counterclaims for conversion damages were denied due to insufficient evidence of fair market value.

Contract BreachTrade Secret MisappropriationLost ProfitsReasonable Royalty DamagesPunitive DamagesConversionAffirmative DefenseContract InterpretationRule 50(b) MotionJury Verdict
References
113
Case No. 08 Civ. 10467; 10 Civ. 6067
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Oil Trading NV v. PRSI Trading Co. LP

Astra Oil Trading N.Y. (AOT) filed two actions against PRSI Trading Company L.P. (PRSI Trading) seeking indemnification and attachment of funds related to a $156 million guarantee payment. PRSI Trading moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to vacate the attachment, also requesting damages and attorneys' fees. The court granted dismissal for the first action (08 Civ. 10467) due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing, which a subsequent change in defendant's ownership could not remedy. However, it denied dismissal for the second action (10 Civ. 6067), noting proper diversity existed at its filing. The court allowed a new attachment in the second action to preserve the status quo, citing the defendant's continuous delays and acknowledged debt. Furthermore, the court denied PRSI Trading's claims for damages and attorneys' fees for wrongful attachment, emphasizing AOT's good faith and the complex legal issues surrounding corporate citizenship for diversity purposes.

Diversity JurisdictionAttachment OrderIndemnification ClaimCorporate CitizenshipPrincipal Place of BusinessSubject Matter JurisdictionAlien CorporationsArbitration Award EnforcementCollateral EstoppelWrongful Attachment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochoa v. Texas Metal Trades Council

Plaintiff Frankie L. Ochoa sued Union Carbide Corporation, Texas City Metal Trades Council, Ronald P. Weaver, and Weldon Hall, alleging national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, breach of duty of fair representation, and various state law claims. Ochoa, a garage mechanic at Union Carbide, reported harassment based on his national origin and union non-membership. He claimed being passed over for opportunities and facing a hostile work environment. Union Carbide investigated but Ochoa felt the situation was not remedied. The Court denied Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment on Title VII claims, finding a genuine issue of fact regarding discrimination. However, state law claims against Union Carbide were dismissed without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction. All claims against Texas City Metal Trades Council were dismissed with prejudice, as Ochoa sued the wrong party. State law claims against Weaver and Hall were also dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationNational OriginTitle VIILabor Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentState Law ClaimsSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 14-09-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Deborah Downing v. Don Burns and Sherry Burns

Deborah Downing sued Don and Sherry Burns for tortious interference and defamation after they alleged she stole trade secrets and threatened to sue her new employers. Downing, previously an assistant to Don Burns, copied parts of a policy manual she authored before resigning. The Burnses countersued for theft of trade secrets. A jury found in Downing's favor on all claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Burnses did not conclusively prove theft of trade secrets and that sufficient evidence supported the defamation and tortious interference findings, but the damages for tortious interference were unsupported. The case was remanded for a new trial due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

Tortious InterferenceDefamationTheft of Trade SecretsLost WagesEconomic DamagesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewRealty Business
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 643 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