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 Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc.

Jonathan Tasini, a freelance writer, filed a complaint against The New York Times Company, challenging a "Release Agreement" offered to writers after a prior copyright infringement judgment (Tasini I). Tasini alleged the agreement, which required writers to waive claims to keep their articles in electronic databases, was unlawful and unenforceable, citing interference with copyright relief, unconscionability, duress, and breach of good faith. The New York Times moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, granted the dismissal, concluding that Tasini lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute largely involved state contract law. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Copyright LitigationArticle III StandingPrudential StandingFederal JurisdictionContract DisputeMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefFreelance JournalismElectronic DatabasesSouthern District of New York
References
45
Case No. 01-10-00516-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2011

Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line Limited v. Miguel Ruiz

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of special appearances by Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line, Limited, who were sued for negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law following a pirate hijacking. The primary legal issue concerned whether the defendants had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed jurisdiction over Maersk due to its continuous and systematic business activities, including extensive port calls, an interactive website, a dedicated Texas employee, and marketing efforts. Conversely, the court reversed the denial for Waterman, finding its contacts with Texas to be sporadic and fortuitous, thus insufficient to support general jurisdiction, leading to Waterman's dismissal from the litigation.

Interlocutory AppealPersonal JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionMinimum ContactsJones ActMaritime LawSpecial AppearanceTexas Court of AppealsCorporate ContactsPurposeful Availment
References
73
Case No. 03-95-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1996

Crawford Heavy and Marine Construction Limited v. Texas Department of Transportation

Crawford Heavy and Marine Construction Limited (Crawford) appealed a district court's order that affirmed a decision by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The dispute arose from a contract for concrete repair on IH-10, where Crawford claimed TxDOT breached the contract regarding repair sites, cement type, traffic control, and delays, seeking over $476,086.00 in damages. An administrative law judge initially recommended a recovery for Crawford, but TxDOT's executive director reduced the award. Crawford then sought judicial review, claiming errors of fact and law and deprivation of property without due process. The appellate court found the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no specific statute granted jurisdiction for review of TxDOT orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, and Crawford did not demonstrate a vested property right to support a due process claim. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction.

JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawContract DisputeGovernmental ImmunityDue ProcessVested RightsSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
28
Case No. 14-16-00933-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Central Petroleum Limited v. Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Central Petroleum Limited, an Australian company, against the denial of its special appearance in a Texas lawsuit filed by Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (GRR). GRR sued Central for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent misrepresentation related to an agreement to find a farmout partner for Central's petroleum rights. Central contested personal jurisdiction, arguing the alleged "Second Agreement" with a Texas forum-selection clause was unauthorized, fabricated, and incomplete. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence of Central's purposeful availment of Texas law through its agent's apparent authority to sign the contract and a substantial connection between Central's Texas contacts and GRR's tort claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitFraudulent MisrepresentationForum-Selection ClauseChoice-of-Law ProvisionApparent AuthorityCorporate AgentOil and Gas
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1988

American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Schattman

This mandamus proceeding addresses whether a trial court had jurisdiction to reinstate a case 254 days after its dismissal for want of prosecution, especially when the plaintiff received no notice of dismissal for 234 days. The plaintiff, Willie Mae Thompson, had a worker's compensation settlement agreement case against American General Fire and Casualty Company. The trial court granted reinstatement, citing constitutional issues regarding due process and the open courts provision. However, the appellate court ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the statutory time limits for reinstatement had expired. The court clarified that while lack of notice is a concern, the plaintiff still had a remedy through a bill of review and that the time limits, when balanced against the state's interest in finality of judgments, do not violate constitutional provisions under these circumstances. The writ of mandamus was granted, setting aside the reinstatement order.

Mandamus ProceedingTrial Court JurisdictionDismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateNotice of JudgmentDue Process ClauseOpen Courts ProvisionBill of ReviewWorker's Compensation SettlementTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC

Plaintiff Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) liquidation, sought to recover approximately $156 million in avoidable transfers from the BNP Paribas entities (Defendants). The Defendants moved to dismiss the Trustee's proposed Amended Complaint (PAC) on multiple grounds, including improper filing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and statute of limitations. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding a prima facie showing of sufficient minimum contacts. The filing of the PAC was treated as a motion for leave to amend, which was granted in part for original subsequent transfer claims but denied for newly asserted claims due to being time-barred. The Court also found the Trustee failed to plausibly allege the Defendants' subjective knowledge or willful blindness to the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, but noted the Defendants must still prove they gave value for the surviving transfers.

BankruptcyPonzi SchemeFraudulent TransferSecurities Investor Protection ActWillful BlindnessPersonal JurisdictionLeave to AmendStatute of LimitationsSubsequent TransfereesInvestment Advisory
References
82
Showing 1-10 of 12,632 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