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. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Shield Corp. v. Lahorgue

This case addresses the enforceability of a contractual indemnity clause under Texas fair notice requirements. American Home Shield (American Home) sought indemnity from Turn-Key Pool & Spa (Turn-Key) following a personal injury suit stemming from a spa heater explosion serviced by Turn-Key. The trial court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and granted Turn-Key's, ruling the indemnity provision failed both the conspicuousness requirement and the express negligence doctrine. On appeal, American Home contended the provision satisfied fair notice or, alternatively, Turn-Key had actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the indemnity provision was not conspicuous and American Home failed to establish actual knowledge, thus rendering the clause unenforceable.

Contractual IndemnityFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge ExceptionSummary JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity ClauseService Agreement DisputeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. E2011-00831-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2012

Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran

The case of Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran involved an appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County. The Trial Court dismissed Fair's motor vehicle accident claim because proof of service for her summons was not returned to the clerk until 412 days after issuance, failing to comply promptly with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(1). Consequently, Fair could not rely on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 to toll the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules for service of process.

Statute of LimitationsService of ProcessMotion to DismissCivil Procedure RulesAppellate ReviewJudgment AffirmedTennessee LawMotor Vehicle AccidentProof of ServiceTimeliness
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes

Justice SCHNEIDER's concurring opinion supports the Court's decision that employers must adhere to fair notice requirements, including the express-negligence doctrine and conspicuousness, when enrolling employees in non-subscriber workers’ compensation benefit plans. The Justice provides an additional rationale, highlighting that workers are typically less sophisticated than the employers who draft these agreements, often unaware of the rights they forfeit. The case of Reyes, a non-English speaker who signed an English contract despite a Spanish summary, is cited as an example of this disparity. Justice SCHNEIDER argues that due to this inherent power imbalance, there is a strong public policy justification to mandate that these non-subscriber agreements satisfy both fair notice requirements.

Workers' CompensationNon-subscriber agreementsFair noticeExpress-negligenceConspicuousnessEmployer liabilityEmployee rightsContract lawPublic policyDisparity of bargaining power
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Proud

Plaintiff Edward L. Davis initiated a putative class action against New York State and federal defendants, challenging their administration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The core of the dispute revolves around the method for restoring SNAP benefits, specifically addressing reductions due to Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) and the adequacy of benefit notices and fair hearing procedures. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing jurisdictional issues like the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, alongside claims of preclusion and failure to state a claim. The court denied dismissal on jurisdictional grounds for most claims, finding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable and the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity applicable. However, it granted dismissal for plaintiff's arbitrary and capricious claims and claims regarding the sufficiency of notices, deeming them time-barred or failing to state a claim, while other aspects of the motion were denied.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ProgramClass ActionDue ProcessEleventh AmendmentRooker-Feldman DoctrineAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunityMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Regulations
References
97
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1998

Realite v. Ark Restaurants Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for reconsideration in a collective action brought by hourly-paid, non-managerial employees against Ark Restaurants Corp. and its fifteen restaurants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York and New Jersey labor laws. Plaintiffs allege a widespread scheme of minimum wage and overtime violations. The court previously authorized class notice, but defendants challenged the scope, arguing a lack of commonality among employees and restaurants. After reviewing new affidavits from plaintiffs demonstrating a factual nexus of common compensation practices and central control by Ark, the court affirmed its earlier ruling. The court authorized notice to be sent to all hourly-paid employees who worked at the 14 New York Ark Restaurants within the last six years and the one New Jersey restaurant within the last three years, for discovery purposes, while reserving the right to decertify or subdivide the class later.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionClass NoticeOvertime PayMinimum WageTip CreditLabor Law ViolationsEmployment PracticesReconsideration Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridge v. Gold

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a workers' compensation claim. The dissent argues that the defendant, Jay Braymiller, failed to meet his burden in establishing that collateral estoppel should bar the plaintiff's action. Specifically, they contend that the defendant did not demonstrate that the issue of whether an accident occurred was clearly raised and decided in a prior workers’ compensation proceeding, citing an inadequate record. Furthermore, the dissent highlights an issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the disputed issue before the Workers’ Compensation Board, as the "C-7 Notice" did not provide sufficient notice that the employer was challenging the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, the dissenting justices conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDissenting OpinionBurden of ProofIssue PreclusionC-7 NoticeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausally Related AccidentAccident Occurrence
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 6,077 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