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

In Re Harlan

The Debtors, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claimed an exemption for the proceeds from the voluntary sale of their homestead under Article 3834, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. Kettering Construction Company, a creditor, objected, arguing that the exemption's intent was for reinvestment in a new homestead within six months, and the court should verify this use. The Court, referencing White v. Stump, determined that exemption rights are fixed at the time of the bankruptcy petition's filing. Since the Debtors filed within the six-month period, the proceeds were exempt at that time, and subsequent use is irrelevant. The Court found no fraud in the timing of the petition to protect the exemption. Therefore, Kettering Construction Company's objection was overruled.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionChapter 7State Exemption LawsProceeds of SaleDate of FilingCreditor ObjectionFraud AllegationTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Morua

This case, Morua v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, addresses whether supplemental interrogatory answers must be verified under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Francisco Morua sued State Farm for workers' compensation benefits. State Farm's unverified supplemental responses identified an expert, Jeffrey C. Siegel, whose testimony Morua objected to at trial. The Texas Supreme Court resolved conflicting appellate court decisions, ruling that supplemental interrogatory answers must indeed be verified. However, the Court found Morua waived his objection due to a thirteen-month delay in raising it. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

DiscoveryInterrogatoriesVerificationExpert Witness TestimonyWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Court ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of ObjectionTrial Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. WR 78,113-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Garza, Humberto

This document contains Applicant Humberto Garza's objections to the Convicting Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and its recommendation to deny habeas corpus relief. Garza seeks the withdrawal of the February 12, 2015 Order, the recusal of Judge Noe Gonzalez, and the assignment of a different judge or revised findings. The objections are rooted in concerns over alleged ex parte communications with the jury by the judge and bailiff, the court's adoption of the State's findings, and insufficient funding for case development. Additionally, Garza objects to the exclusion of expert reports diagnosing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and outlining its impact on his life.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusRecusal MotionJury MisconductEx Parte CommunicationJudicial ImpartialityFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderMitigation EvidenceCapital PunishmentDeath Penalty
References
76
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Messing

The debtor, Patrick F. Messing, sought to exempt his $6,365.45 interest in an ERISA-qualified pension benefit plan established by his employer, J.B.F. Associates, Inc. He claimed the exemption under both Tennessee law (Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-104(b)) and federal law (11 U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A)). The trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to both claims. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the Tennessee law claim, finding the state statute preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the trustee's objection to the federal law claim, concluding that ERISA § 206(d)(1) establishes a cognizable federal exemption. Therefore, the debtor's claim of exemption was granted under federal law but denied under state law.

ERISABankruptcyExemptionPension PlanEmployee BenefitsFederal PreemptionAnti-AlienationChapter 7Debtor's RightsTrustee Objection
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kessler

William B. Kessler, Inc. (Kessler), a clothing manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Kessler was party to collective bargaining agreements requiring contributions to a Multi-employer Pension Plan (MPP). Upon cessation of operations, a withdrawal liability became due to the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union ('the Union'). The Union filed several claims for this withdrawal liability, seeking administrative priority status. Kessler objected, arguing that the withdrawal liability was based on pre-petition services and did not qualify as an administrative expense under Bankruptcy Code § 507(a)(1). The court sustained Kessler's objection, expunging duplicative claims and reclassifying the remaining withdrawal liability claim as a general unsecured claim, concluding it was not entitled to administrative status.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementMulti-employer Pension PlanMPPAWithdrawal LiabilityAdministrative ExpensesPriority ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsSeverance Pay
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,252 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