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

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Weber

The plaintiff, a marketing manager for Rushmore & Weber, Inc., was terminated after expressing his intent to exercise a stock option. He sued the company and its president, Peter B. Weber, for breach of his employment contract and intentional interference with his stock option agreement. The trial court dismissed the intentional interference claim, ruling that all agreements formed a single contract, precluding interference by a party to that contract. A jury found that the plaintiff was terminated for "good cause" as defined in his employment contract, citing poor performance and misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in dismissing the intentional interference claim and upholding the jury's verdict as supported by evidence.

Employment ContractStock Option AgreementBreach of ContractIntentional InterferenceGood Cause TerminationCorporate LawShareholder AgreementAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc.

This appeal concerns a negligence case where restaurant patron Sarah Beth Clingan Overstreet lost sight in her left eye after being struck by a shard from a broken dinner plate at Shoney's. Following a jury award of $2,013,000 to Ms. Overstreet for her injuries, Shoney's appealed the Circuit Court's judgment. Shoney's challenged several evidentiary rulings, the trial court's verdict form, and the refusal to grant a remittitur. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error in the handling of evidence or the verdict form, and concluding that the jury's extensive damage award for pain, suffering, permanent impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life was supported by material evidence, despite claims of duplicative damages.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEye InjuryLost Earning CapacityPain and SufferingDisfigurementLoss of Enjoyment of LifeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary Rulings
References
143
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riddle v. TEX-FIN, INC.

James W. Riddle sued his former employer, Tex-Fin, Inc., for alleged willful violations of the FLSA, seeking unpaid overtime wages. After a jury trial, the jury found that Riddle worked overtime, Tex-Fin had knowledge of it, and the violation was willful. However, the jury's verdict included conflicting answers regarding specific overtime hours and handwritten dollar amounts, along with a note indicating a 'hard-fought compromise' for 197 overtime hours, which contradicted their formal responses to questions. Both parties moved for judgment, but the court denied these motions due to the irreconcilable and uncertain nature of the verdict. The court granted Riddle's alternative motion for a new trial, concluding that the jury's unsolicited statements cast doubt on the verdict's unqualified nature and that the verdict form contained plain error.

FLSAOvertimeJury VerdictNew TrialInconsistent VerdictWage and HourEmployer LiabilityWillfulnessFederal CourtSpecial Verdict
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 1968

Weeks v. Beardsley

Raymond H. Weeks, an employee of joint venture contractors, died on October 30, 1964, after being struck by an automobile operated by Beverly J. Beardsley. The plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the defendants, which resulted from a jury verdict of no cause of action, and an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside that verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury's findings regarding the decedent's contributory negligence and the defendant operator's freedom from negligence were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, and therefore, the verdict was not palpably wrong.

Wrongful DeathAutomobile AccidentContributory NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyNegligenceMotion to Set Aside VerdictTrial TermAffirmed Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1990

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

Billy Don Hamrick sued several defendants for an unlawful arrest and car search, stemming from a warrant based on misrepresentations by Officer Dewayne Mixon. Mixon and Officer Jim Lane arrested Hamrick, who was never prosecuted. Hamrick alleged constitutional rights violations, leading to a jury verdict against Mixon, Lane, and Chief James H. Cook. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Mixon and Lane, upholding jury damage awards of $30,000 and $5,000, respectively. However, the motion was granted for Chief Cook due to insufficient evidence of his liability. The court also denied the defendants' alternative motion for a new trial.

Civil Rights ViolationUnlawful ArrestUnlawful Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictPolice MisconductProbable CauseFalse ArrestDue Process
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 1,911 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