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

Majors v. Moneymaker

Elsie N. Majors and her husband, Parnick Y. Majors, sued Elizabeth Moneymaker for damages following an automobile accident. All parties were co-employees of the American National Insurance Company, and the incident occurred within the scope of their employment, bringing them under the Tennessee Workmen's Compensation Law. Moneymaker filed a plea in abatement, arguing that the Workmen's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and she was not a 'third party' subject to a common law negligence suit. The trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the suits, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a co-employee is not considered 'some person other than the employer' under Code Section 6865, thereby making the workers' compensation remedy exclusive and precluding a common law action against the co-employee. The court also discussed the implications for the insurance carrier's subrogation rights.

Automobile AccidentWorkmen's CompensationExclusive RemedyFellow Employee LiabilityThird-Party SuitPlea in AbatementSubrogationCommon Law ActionTennessee Supreme CourtCo-employee Immunity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Henson

Justice SUE WALKER dissents from the majority's holding that trial counsel failed to preserve error during closing argument. The majority asserted an objection was required when the trial court ruled that the jury should disregard workers' compensation testimony. Justice Walker argues that the majority mischaracterizes the trial court's *ruling* as an improper *comment*, rendering their cited case law inapplicable. She emphasizes that rules of appellate procedure, specifically Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(c), expressly state that no formal exception to a trial court ruling is needed to preserve a complaint for appeal. Therefore, Justice Walker believes the merits of the appellant Smith's complaints regarding the trial court's ruling should be addressed.

Appellate ProcedureError PreservationDissenting OpinionTrial Court RulingWorkers' CompensationJudicial DissentTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureJury InstructionsLegal ObjectionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

Karic v. Major Automotive Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives, commenced an action against Major World car dealerships and individual defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) due to alleged failures to pay proper minimum wages. They moved for conditional certification of a collective action, approval of a proposed FLSA Notice, and expedited discovery. Defendants opposed, arguing discovery was substantially advanced and thus a heightened standard for certification should apply, and that certain entities should be excluded due to a lack of named representatives. The Court granted the plaintiffs' request for conditional certification, finding they met the minimal burden of showing similarly situated employees and a common compensation policy across all Major World entities. The Court also provided specific instructions for modifying the proposed class notice and ordered defendants to provide contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum WageWage and HourSales RepresentativesCar DealershipsOpt-inSimilarly Situated
References
27
Case No. 14-07-00590-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2008

in Re: Michael Hicks and Jerry Fazio

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a petition for a writ of mandamus. Justice Frost dissents from the majority's decision to conditionally grant the petition, arguing that the relators, Michael Hicks and Jerry Fazio, failed to meet their heavy burden to show the trial court clearly abused its discretion by compelling discovery. The dissent contends that the majority incorrectly imposed the burden on the real parties in interest (Taylor and Heitkamp), misapplied Texas Rule of Evidence 511 regarding privilege waiver, and improperly considered extrinsic evidence to interpret an unambiguous bankruptcy court order. Justice Frost asserts that Hicks implicitly waived attorney-client and work-product privileges through the assignment of claims in his bankruptcy case and that Hicks and Fazio waived other discovery objections by not asserting them timely. Therefore, the dissent concludes the petition for writ of mandamus should have been denied in its entirety.

MandamusWrit of MandamusDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product PrivilegePrivilege WaiverAssignment of ClaimsBankruptcy LawTrial Court DiscretionAppellate Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re North American Refractories Co.

Justice BURGESS dissents from the majority's decision to issue a writ of mandamus, arguing that the circumstances do not warrant such extraordinary relief. The dissent contends that the denial of a continuance is typically not subject to mandamus unless special conditions, like a legislative continuance or deprivation of representation, are met, which are not present here. BURGESS disputes the majority's public policy justification for equating legislative service with personal vacation time. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the trial judge possesses inherent powers to manage the court's docket, especially in complex multi-party litigation, which should not be overridden by administrative regional rules. The dissent also highlights that the majority improperly addressed a Rule 245 violation sua sponte and that NARCO's motion for continuance, based on incomplete discovery, failed to demonstrate due diligence as required by Rule 252. Therefore, BURGESS would deny the mandamus.

MandamusContinuanceJudicial DiscretionLocal RulesDue ProcessDiscoveryAppellate ReviewTexas LawTrial ManagementPublic Policy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.

Chief Justice Walker dissents from the majority's decision to declare Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(b) unconstitutional. He argues that Rule 327(b) is not in fatal conflict with the Texas Constitution when properly construed in conjunction with Rule 327(a). Walker contends that the trial court correctly distinguished between jury deliberations and juror misconduct during voir dire, with Rule 327(a) allowing evidence of the latter. The dissent criticizes prior judicial interpretations that overly expand the definition of "jury deliberations," thereby improperly restricting the admission of evidence concerning juror bias during voir dire, which hinders a fair trial. Furthermore, the dissent questions the majority's constitutional challenge, stating that Rule 327(b) was not implicated in the trial court's decision regarding juror Maxwell's voir dire misconduct.

Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureJury MisconductVoir DireTexasDissenting OpinionRule 327(b) TRCPRule 327(a) TRCPJuror BiasMotion for New Trial
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 13-09-00674-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

in Re: Dallas National Insurance Company

This dissenting memorandum opinion addresses a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Dallas National Insurance Company, seeking a ruling from the trial court on its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The dissenting justice agrees with the majority that the trial court has a ministerial duty to rule and has refused to do so. However, the dissent disagrees with the majority's conclusion that the trial court's three-year delay in ruling is reasonable, despite the possibility of a related case. The dissenting justice concludes that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule within a reasonable amount of time and would therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to exercise its discretion without dictating the outcome.

Writ of MandamusPlea to the JurisdictionMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionReasonable TimeDissenting OpinionAppellate ProcedureTrial Court DelayInterlocutory AppealJudicial Duty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. City of New York

Judge Titone dissents from the majority's decision, which applied the "firefighter rule" to bar a plaintiff's suit against a municipality for line-of-duty injuries caused by a co-worker's negligence. The dissent argues that the "firefighter rule" has historically been applied only to third-party tortfeasors, not fellow servants. Judge Titone asserts that previous New York Court of Appeals cases like Buckley v City of New York, Kenavan v City of New York, and McCormack v City of New York established that municipalities could be liable for co-worker negligence, except where professional judgment was involved. The dissent criticizes the majority for extending the "firefighter rule" without compelling justification, effectively reviving the abolished "fellow-servant" rule and undermining incentives for municipalities to ensure careful selection and training of public servants.

Firefighter RuleCo-worker NegligenceGovernmental ImmunityFellow-Servant RuleRespondeat SuperiorProfessional Judgment ImmunityPublic Safety OfficersLine-of-Duty InjuriesMunicipal LiabilityDissenting Opinion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 11,289 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