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
Mar 29, 2004

Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs Nexans Wires S.A. and Lacroix & Kress GmbH sued defendants Sark-USA, Inc. and Sarkuysan Elektrolitik Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S., alleging unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The core of the federal claim centered on allegations that defendants induced former employees of a customer, AEB, to steal plaintiffs' proprietary information from AEB's computer systems. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss the CFAA claims into a motion for summary judgment to assess if plaintiffs met the CFAA's jurisdictional "loss" threshold of $5,000. It determined that the claimed losses, consisting of executive travel expenses and lost revenue unrelated to computer service interruption, did not qualify as "loss" under the CFAA's definition. Consequently, the federal CFAA claims were dismissed, but the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Computer Fraud and Abuse ActCFAASummary JudgmentTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionJurisdictionStandingFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureData TheftProprietary Information
References
20
Case No. 08-05-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

in Re: Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company

In this original proceeding in mandamus, Relator Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company sought to overturn a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involved Jose Gomez, a former employee, who sued Phelps Dodge for age discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was laid off following a workers' compensation claim. Phelps Dodge argued Gomez was bound by an arbitration policy in an employee handbook. The Court of Appeals referenced a factually similar prior case, In re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co., and concluded that the company's Problem Solving Procedure did not constitute an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the appellate court denied mandamus relief, upholding the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbooksAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewDenial of Relief
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, a Division of Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. v. Jose Gomez

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company against its former employee, Jose Gomez. Gomez, a Spanish speaker, alleged he was unaware of the company's arbitration policy in the employee handbook and claimed his termination was retaliatory for filing a workers' compensation claim and discriminatory due to his age, violating Texas Labor Code Chapter 21. The Court of Appeals, citing its previous decision in Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co. v. Chavelle, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and mandamus was the appropriate method of recourse.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration PolicyInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbookTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Villanueva Madrid

Defendant Consuelo Marquez, an investment broker, was indicted on seventeen counts, including conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Marquez sought severance of the money laundering charge (Count One) from the bank and wire fraud charges (Counts Two through Seventeen), dismissal of certain charges, and various discovery orders. The court granted her motion for severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing the undue prejudice that would arise from a joint trial due to the potentially inflammatory nature of the money laundering evidence. The court denied the motion to dismiss the wire fraud charges based on deprivation of honest services, finding the indictment facially sufficient. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Marquez's discovery motions, setting a schedule for the disclosure of Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence, and witness lists.

SeveranceMoney LaunderingBank FraudWire FraudConspiracyFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureUndue PrejudiceDiscovery OrdersHonest Services FraudFiduciary Duty
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Schlesinger

The government sought a preliminary order of forfeiture against Nat Sehlesinger and Goodmark Industries, Inc. for over $21 million, alleging assets were proceeds of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The defendants were convicted following a jury trial in May 2005, based on schemes involving fraudulent insurance claims for fires at their business property and defrauding creditors through shell corporations. The court determined that the Wallabout Street Property, which housed the business, facilitated the money laundering offense. It also ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for mail and wire fraud even without 'special circumstances,' acting as a 'gap filler' where civil forfeiture is authorized. Consequently, the court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific sums related to money laundering, insurance fraud proceeds, and creditor fraud proceeds.

Criminal ForfeitureMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingInsurance FraudCreditor FraudAsset ForfeitureWallabout Street PropertyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)18 U.S.C. § 982
References
43
Case No. 07-CR-14(S-1)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2014

United States v. Qualls

Thomas Qualls was found guilty by jury verdict on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in 2008, and later pled guilty to failure to appear. During sentencing, Qualls objected to several enhancements to his offense level, including those for loss amount, sophisticated means, and leadership role, and sought a downward departure due to diminished mental capacity. The Court, presided over by Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied all of Qualls's objections and requests for downward departure or variance. The Court affirmed that the application of the 2013 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual did not violate the ex post facto clause and that a Fatico hearing was unwarranted. Consequently, a sentence within the Guidelines range was imposed, totaling 150 months concurrently for fraud counts and 60 months consecutively for failure to appear.

Criminal FraudWire FraudMail FraudObstruction of JusticeFailure to AppearSentencing GuidelinesEx Post FactoDiminished Mental CapacitySophisticated MeansLeadership Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Widera v. Ettco Wire & Cable Corp.

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning the dismissal of a common-law negligence claim. The case involves Catherine Widera, an infant plaintiff, who alleges severe prenatal injuries from lead exposure. These injuries are attributed to lead dust brought home by her father, Matthew Widera, from his employment at Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., which subsequently exposed her pregnant mother. The dissenting judge argues for the reinstatement of the negligence cause of action, asserting that the defendant employer owed a foreseeable duty of care to the employee's unborn child. The opinion critiques the 'lack of duty' dismissal, advocating for an expansion of liability in light of evolving legal precedents, policy considerations, and scientific evidence regarding 'fouling the nest' syndrome.

Prenatal InjuryLead PoisoningEmployer NegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxinsWorkplace SafetyCommon LawJudicial ActivismDissenting Opinion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graves v. Anchor Wire Corp. of Tennessee

Margie Graves appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to Anchor Wire Corporation of Tennessee, her former employer. Graves was terminated in 1982 for taking confidential company production reports. She argued that an employee handbook created an implied contract of employment, thereby altering her "at-will" status. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, reiterating that under Tennessee law, an employment contract for an indefinite term remains an at-will contract, allowing termination without cause. The court also noted that Graves admitted her actions warranted discipline, and the handbook did not dispute the company's right to discharge her for such misconduct.

Employee at willWrongful terminationImplied contractEmployee handbookSummary judgmentTennessee lawMisconductProduction reportsEmployment lawAppellate review
References
3
Case No. 225 S.W.3d 601
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co.

Alfredo Chavelle, a former mechanic at Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, filed a worker's compensation claim following a job-related injury. Subsequently, he was laid off and believed his termination was due to age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Chavelle initiated a lawsuit against Phelps Dodge, prompting the company to file a motion to compel arbitration based on its employee handbook's Problem Solving Procedure (PSP). The trial court denied this motion, leading Phelps Dodge to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court concluded that the PSP did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, ruling it was merely an internal grievance procedure that lacked the ability for parties to select independent arbitrators, as the arbitrators were exclusively company employees. Consequently, the appellate court denied the mandamus relief, affirming the trial court's decision.

Mandamus ReliefArbitration AgreementEmployment DisputeRetaliatory DischargeAge DiscriminationEmployee HandbookProblem Solving ProcedureInternal GrievanceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,392 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