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. 13-15-00098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Hudson Insurance Company v. Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, Brian Jones Farms, & Crop Guard Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal regarding a trial court's denial of Hudson Insurance Company's motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs, Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, and Brian Jones Farms, sued Hudson and CropGuard Group, Inc., alleging overcharged crop insurance premiums for Crop Year 2013. The appellees argue that a valid and conscionable arbitration agreement did not exist, citing non-receipt of the policy, unconscionable terms like a shortened statute of limitations, and the dispute falling outside the arbitration clause's scope as it pertains to policy or procedure interpretation rather than claims for loss. The brief advocates for upholding the trial court's decision.

Crop InsuranceArbitrationContract DisputeUnconscionabilityAppellate ReviewInsurance PremiumsTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActMotion to CompelCivil Procedure
References
36
Case No. W2024-01001-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Dustin Keith Gamble v. Madison Darlene Gamble

The mother, Madison Darlene Gamble, appealed a divorce proceeding, arguing the trial court failed to properly apply statutory best interest factors in its parenting plan determination. The Court of Appeals found a lack of specific findings regarding the children's best interest and the application of relevant statutory factors in the trial court's order, despite testimony from the father. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the lower court's judgment concerning the parenting plan. The case was remanded for the entry of an order containing appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the children's best interest, with the existing Permanent Parenting Plan remaining in effect until further orders.

Divorce ProceedingsChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationBest Interest of ChildDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of LawRemand OrderStatutory Factors
References
23
Case No. 2016-01-0372
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Gamble, Ceasar v. Miller Industries, Inc.

The employee, Ceasar Gamble, suffered compensable injuries to his left hip and low back after a fall at work. The employer, Miller Industries, Inc., denied a recommended hip replacement, arguing the need did not primarily arise from employment due to a pre-existing condition. The trial court initially awarded medical benefits for the hip and back and denied temporary disability. Both parties appealed. The Appeals Board affirmed the award of medical benefits for the hip and back injuries and the denial of temporary disability benefits. However, the Board vacated the trial court's finding that the employee would likely prevail in establishing that the hip replacement was primarily caused by the employment, citing insufficient medical evidence to meet the 50% causation threshold required by Tennessee law. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow the employee to potentially present additional medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealsMedical CausationPre-existing InjuryHip ReplacementSpinal InjuryTemporary DisabilityBurden of ProofInterlocutory DecisionOsteoarthritisAvascular Necrosis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. 2016-01-0471
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2016

Gamble, Ceasar v. Miller Indyustries

Ceasar Gamble, a 60-year-old production assembler, injured his left hip and lumbar spine after falling at Miller Industries. The employer initially accepted the claim but later denied it based on the treating physician's causation inquiry. Mr. Gamble filed for an expedited hearing seeking medical benefits. The court found that Mr. Gamble would likely prevail in establishing his injury arose primarily out of and in the course of employment, noting that his fall dislodged a cartilage body in his hip. Despite a pre-existing condition, the court ordered Miller Industries and its carrier to provide medical benefits for Mr. Gamble's left hip and low back treatment, denying his claim for temporary disability benefits due to lack of evidence of missed work.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingPreexisting ConditionAggravation of InjuryCausation StandardHip InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryOrthopedic SurgeryEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Yi Ching Liu

The case concerns defendant Yi Ching Liu, who was charged with using unauthorized credit card convenience checks and pled guilty. Liu sought a downward departure from sentencing guidelines, claiming diminished capacity due to pathological gambling addiction. Expert testimony from psychotherapist Stephen Block, supported by DSM IV criteria, confirmed Liu's severe addiction and a direct link to his criminal acts. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Weinstein, granted a four-point downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, resulting in a 24-month incarceration sentence. The decision emphasizes that pathological gambling can constitute significantly reduced mental capacity for sentencing purposes, citing precedent and the evolving understanding of this disorder.

Diminished CapacityPathological GamblingSentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureImpulse Control DisorderFraudCredit Card FraudCriminal SentencingDSM IVFederal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) sued Ultreo, Inc. for false advertising under the Lanham Act and the New York Consumer Protection Act, specifically challenging Ultreo's claims about its toothbrush technology. P&G sought the disclosure of five scientific studies conducted by Ultreo, arguing they were discoverable business documents. Ultreo resisted, claiming the studies were protected by attorney work product privilege. The court rejected Ultreo's argument, finding that the studies were a core part of Ultreo’s business plan to substantiate its advertising claims and would have been prepared regardless of anticipated litigation. Therefore, the court ordered Ultreo to produce the studies to P&G.

False advertisingLanham ActNew York Consumer Protection ActDiscovery disputeAttorney work productPrivilegeScientific studiesClinical researchLitigation anticipationBusiness plan
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Charles Reed sued Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Reed claimed he was denied promotion opportunities and coaching for a Technician Level 4 position due to his race, and that his complaints led to adverse actions. The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Reed's claims of single-motive race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, finding insufficient evidence for a prima facie case in several areas. The Court found that the alleged denial of coaching was not an adverse employment action and Reed did not fully meet T4 qualifications. However, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Reed's remaining claim for failure to promote under a mixed-motive analysis.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActCircumstantial EvidenceMixed-Motive
References
61
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01713 [227 AD3d 36]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2024

Matter of Merrill

Anthony V. Merrill, an attorney, faced 11 charges of professional misconduct, including identity theft, commingling client funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to maintain proper records and file required statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Special Referee sustained all charges. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's report and suspended Merrill from the practice of law for 18 months, without credit for prior suspension time. Merrill's misconduct occurred during a period when he was suffering from an untreated compulsive gambling addiction, for which he has since sought treatment and maintained abstinence.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsClient fundsFiduciary duty breachIdentity theftRecord keeping violationsSuspension from practiceGambling addictionMitigating circumstancesAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GRYBOSKY, STANLEY S. v. RIORDAN, DAWN M.

The petitioner father initiated proceedings to modify a prior custody order, seeking sole custody of his child from the respondent mother. The petition was prompted by an incident where the mother left their six-year-old child alone in a casino hotel room for nearly three hours, leading to her arrest and a Child Protective Services (CPS) report. Evidence also showed the child suffered from poor hygiene and severe dental issues under the mother's care, and the mother struggled with a gambling addiction. The Family Court granted the father's petition, finding a sufficient change in circumstances and that awarding sole custody to the father was in the child's best interests due to his stable environment and ability to meet the child's needs. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, rejecting the mother's contention regarding an alleged CPS report against the father, deeming it waived and without merit.

Custody modificationchild neglectparental fitnessbest interests of childchange of circumstancesFamily Courtparental rightschild welfaregambling addictionNew York
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 56 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