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

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
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
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

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. 04-08-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2009

Midwest Employers Casualty Company on Behalf of Terry English v. Charles Harpole, Jim Carroll, Alan Kwast, Albert Lopez and Brock Pittman

This appeal examines a negligence claim brought by Midwest Employers Casualty Company, on behalf of injured football coach Terry English, against several referees, including Charles Harpole. English sustained a severe head injury after Harpole collided with him in a designated restricted area during a high school football game. Midwest, the worker's compensation insurer for English's employer, argued the referees had a duty to enforce safety rules and that Harpole failed to exercise reasonable care. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the referees, ruling that Harpole owed no duty to foresee English's presence in the restricted area, as English was in violation of game rules, and there was no evidence of a breach of duty by the referees.

AppealSummary JudgmentNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilitySports LawFootball RefereePersonal InjuryWorker's CompensationTexas Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coureau v. Granfield

Plaintiff Victor Coureau commenced a pro se action against Bill Granfield, President of Local 100 UNITE HERE, alleging various wrongs including personal injuries, termination of benefits, fraudulent inducement, and racial discrimination. The Court construed these allegations as arising from the Union's duty of fair representation and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, primarily due to the claims being barred by the six-month statute of limitations for breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Title VII claim failed because a breach of the duty of fair representation was not established and the plaintiff did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion GrievanceRacial DiscriminationEmployment Termination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrett v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

The court reviewed an appeal regarding the sufficiency of third-party complaints filed by the lessee, owners, and developers of a Holiday Inn (original defendants and third-party plaintiffs) against the Town of Greece (third-party defendant). The original negligence actions sought damages after a motel fire. The third-party plaintiffs sought contribution and indemnity from the town, despite the town having been previously dismissed from the primary actions due to owing no duty to the original plaintiffs. The court reversed the Special Term's decision, ruling that a third-party action for contribution or indemnity requires the third-party defendant to have violated a duty owed to the original plaintiff. As the Town of Greece owed no such duty, the third-party complaints were dismissed, aligning with established rules for joint tort-feasors and principles of unjust enrichment.

Third-party complaintContributionIndemnityNegligenceDuty of careMunicipal liabilityTort-feasorsUnjust enrichmentFire damagesCertificate of occupancy
References
34
Case No. 4:16-cv-732
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Nevada v. United States Department of Labor

The State of Nevada and twenty other states (State Plaintiffs) filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor, challenging the Final Rule that raised the minimum salary level for the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemption. The court consolidated this action with a similar challenge by Business Plaintiffs. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Department exceeded its delegated authority under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) by raising the minimum salary level to effectively supplant the duties test for the EAP exemption. It concluded that Congress intended the exemption to be based on duties, not primarily on salary, thus rendering the Final Rule unlawful. The injunction was issued nationwide, preventing the implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule pending further order of the Court.

Overtime ExemptionFLSA RegulationsSalary ThresholdDuties TestAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationChevron DeferencePreliminary InjunctionFederal AgenciesState Sovereignty
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 12,866 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