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

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamshovich v. Shvartsman

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and secured a judgment against the defendant, Samuel Racer, in 2000. This judgment, however, was not formally entered until 2010. Subsequently, in 2012, Racer moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the plaintiff had abandoned the action by failing to timely enter the judgment, citing 22 NYCRR 202.48. The Supreme Court initially granted Racer's motion without providing an explanation. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, denying Racer's motion to vacate and reinstating the original judgment. The appellate court determined that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was inapplicable as no further judicial action was required for the judgment's entry, and Racer failed to present any other valid grounds for vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a).

Fiduciary DutyJudgment VacaturAppellate ReviewProcedural RulesCivil ProcedureDefault JudgmentTimelinessRule 22 NYCRR 202.48CPLR 5015(a)Kings County
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunnagan v. Watson

This case involves an appeal between James R. Dunnagan and Joseph Earl Watson, two members of the limited partnership “Parker County’s Squaw Creek Downs, L.P.” The dispute arose from disagreements after the partnership failed to secure a horse racetrack license. Watson initially sued Dunnagan for breach of fiduciary duties and sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, while Dunnagan filed a cross-petition against Watson for breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found Watson breached his fiduciary duties, causing damages of $459,645.69 to the limited partnership, and also found that Dunnagan's actions made it impracticable for the limited partnership to continue, leading to its dissolution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings regarding Watson's breach of fiduciary duties and the judicial dissolution of the partnership.

Limited PartnershipFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJudicial DissolutionPartnership DisputeAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTrial Court JudgmentCorporate GovernanceEquitable Relief
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2003

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA

This case, referred to as the 'Tittle action,' involves class action claims brought by Enron employees who participated in three pension benefit plans (Savings Plan, ESOP, and Cash Balance Plan). Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties under ERISA, RICO violations, and Texas common law claims (negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy) against Enron, its officers, directors, administrative committees, Arthur Andersen, Vinson & Elkins, and several investment banks. The court grants motions to dismiss for most RICO and common law claims, citing preemption by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), as the underlying conduct is actionable as securities fraud. However, the court largely denies motions to dismiss for the ERISA claims, allowing them to proceed, finding that plaintiffs have adequately stated claims for breach of fiduciary duty related to imprudent investments in Enron stock, plan lockdowns, and failure to diversify plan assets. The decision outlines the various duties and liabilities of fiduciaries, co-fiduciaries, and non-fiduciaries under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyCo-Fiduciary LiabilityDirected TrusteeSecurities Litigation Reform ActSLUSA PreemptionClass ActionPension PlansESOP401(k) Plan
References
247
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Publishers' Employees, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co.

Plaintiffs, the Independent Association of Publishers’ Employees, Inc. (IAPE) and ten Canadian employees, sued defendant Dow Jones & Company, Inc., alleging a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that Dow Jones violated its fiduciary obligations by changing the Profit-Sharing Retirement Plan's benefit allocation formula, which resulted in reduced benefits for Canadian employees due to currency conversion. Dow Jones argued it was not a fiduciary for this specific act or that the action was not a breach, asserting the right to amend plan contributions. The court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, found that Dow Jones's fiduciary duties under ERISA did not extend to the method of calculating employer contributions or modifying non-accrued benefits. The court concluded that both the Plan provisions and ERISA allowed prospective changes in contributions by the employer, and therefore, Dow Jones had not breached any fiduciary duty. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

ERISAFiduciary DutyProfit-Sharing PlanBenefit AllocationSummary JudgmentNon-Accrued BenefitsPlan AmendmentEmployer ContributionsCanadian EmployeesDistrict Court
References
5
Case No. 03-97-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1998

Nicholas Van Bavel v. Oasis Design, Inc. David Knapp Constantine Ciocan And C & C Electronics, Ltd.

Nicholas van Bavel sued Oasis Design, Inc., David Knapp, Constantine Ciocan, and C&C Electronics, Ltd. for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found in van Bavel's favor, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment on van Bavel's individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, finding legally insufficient evidence for a fiduciary relationship, detrimental reliance for fraud, and no breach of contract based on a "business sense" clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the derivative action, finding legally sufficient evidence that Knapp and Ciocan breached their fiduciary duty to Oasis Design but factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's damage award, requiring a new trial on that specific claim.

Corporate LawShareholder DisputeFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractFraudJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewDerivative ActionDamagesFactually Insufficient Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grodotzke v. Seaford Avenue Corp.

Plaintiffs, consisting of trustees of employee benefit plans, fiduciaries, and a union president, initiated an action against Seaford Avenue Corporation, G and M Mechanical, Inc., George Luksch, and Michael Scott. The plaintiffs sought recovery for unpaid fringe benefit contributions and alleged breach of fiduciary duty under the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. They contended that the corporate defendants operated as a single employer or alter egos, and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by misusing plan assets. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims relating to the single employer/alter ego status, violations of the collective bargaining agreement (including double-breasting), and the individual defendants' breach of fiduciary duties. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief, deeming it conclusory and essentially moot.

ERISALMRAFiduciary DutyCollective Bargaining AgreementSingle EmployerAlter EgoDouble-breastingFringe BenefitsUnpaid ContributionsMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1995

Scott v. Dime Sav. Bank of New York, FSB

The Scotts (Evelyn A. Scott and Leon Scott) sued The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (Dime) for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. A jury found in favor of the Scotts on the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, awarding $36,000, and assigning 54% fault to the Scotts for negligence. The Dime moved for judgment as a matter of law to dismiss these claims and for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage foreclosure. The court denied the Dime's motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and negligence claims, upholding the jury's verdict due to evidence of a fiduciary relationship beyond a simple debtor-creditor, arising from the Dime's promotion of investments through its affiliate, Invest. The court granted the Dime's motion for foreclosure on the Scotts' mortgage, conditional on Mrs. Scott receiving a life tenancy. The court reasoned that the $36,000 damages pertained to investment losses, not the loan's validity, and the Scotts were in default. The awarded damages were set off against the amounts owed on the counterclaim.

Fiduciary Duty BreachNegligence ClaimsMortgage ForeclosureStock Market InvestmentsGlass-Steagall Act ImplicationsBank Affiliate LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewJudgment as Matter of LawEquitable DefensesPro Se Representation
References
29
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03367 [239 AD3d 1060]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2025

Lambos v. Karabinis

Plaintiff William K. Lambos, a shareholder of B.K. Associates International, Inc. (BK), commenced a shareholder derivative action against defendants Anastasios P. Karabinis and Paul Karabinis, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste. Plaintiff claimed that defendants engaged in undisclosed interest-bearing loan transactions between 2008 and 2015 involving businesses where Karabinis had financial interests. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, deeming the action untimely based on a three-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty had not yet accrued due to the absence of open repudiation of fiduciary obligations or a judicial settlement, and defendants conceded the ongoing existence of fiduciary duties. The Appellate Division also found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing for failure to state a cause of action, as the documentary evidence did not conclusively refute plaintiff's allegations of concealment. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Limitation of ActionsBreach of Fiduciary DutySufficiency of PleadingCorporate WasteShareholder Derivative ActionStatute of LimitationsAppellate PracticeDismissal MotionFiduciary ObligationOpen Repudiation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,172 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