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

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. 20-0552
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2022

S.C. v. M.B., Individually and as Next Friend of I.C.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case concerning the division of community property not addressed in a final divorce decree. The core issue was whether Family Code Subchapter C, enacted in 1987, replaced the traditional Property Code partition remedy and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the original divorce court. The Court held that Subchapter C provides an additional remedy, allowing for a "just and right" division post-divorce, but does not eliminate the existing partition action or impose exclusive jurisdiction on the original divorce court. This means former spouses can still pursue a Property Code partition, but if either spouse invokes Subchapter C, the "just and right" standard must be applied by any court with jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the legislature did not intend to abolish common-law rights or impose jurisdictional restrictions without clear language.

Post-divorce property divisionCommunity propertyTenants in commonExclusive remedyExclusive jurisdictionStatutory constructionProperty Code partitionFamily CodeJust and right standardFinal divorce decree
References
77
Case No. 13-14-00523-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

David Robertson v. Oksana Robertson

This appeal concerns the enforceability of a marital property Partition and Allocation of Income Agreement between David and Oksana Robertson. The agreement, executed under the Texas Constitution and Family Code, partitioned existing and future property as separate property and allocated income. David Robertson, the appellant, failed to prove economic duress, his sole defense against the agreement's voluntariness. The appellee, Oksana Robertson, asserts that the trial court properly granted summary judgment upholding the agreement. Additionally, other points of error raised by the appellant regarding the judgment's scope, spousal support, and attorney's fees are deemed waived and lacking merit. The appellee requests the appellate court affirm the trial court's judgment.

Marital Property AgreementPartition AgreementExchange AgreementVoluntarinessDuressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesCommunity PropertySeparate Property
References
29
Case No. 07-13-00363-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2014

Rhonda Sadler v. Geneva Gee and Anthony Gee

Rhonda Sadler appealed a post-answer default judgment. Appellees Anthony and Geneva Gee had filed suit for partition of a land parcel in Bosque County, Texas. Sadler, appearing pro se, filed an answer alleging ownership but failed to appear at a final partition hearing, resulting in a default judgment for the Gees. Sadler's subsequent motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law. On appeal, the court applied the Craddock test, finding that Sadler's failure to appear was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that she presented a meritorious defense with a recorded deed, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to the Gees. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionPartition ActionReal Estate LawProperty DisputeAppellate ProcedureTrial Court ErrorReversed and Remanded
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melnick v. Press

This case involves a diversity action between plaintiffs Geraldine Melnick and Lonnie Sehwimmer, and defendant Cary Press, stemming from the termination of Melnick's and Press's quasi-marital relationship. Plaintiffs sought the partition of several properties, the imposition of a constructive trust on another, and damages for defendant's alleged wrongful conversion of funds. The Court ordered the partition and equal division of proceeds for the properties at 15 Ohio Avenue and Delray Beach, Florida. However, it denied claims for reimbursement of carrying costs, found no evidence of ouster from 15 Ohio, and rejected conversion claims against Press regarding insurance proceeds and home equity line of credit funds. Additionally, the plaintiffs' request for a constructive trust on the 16 Nevada Avenue property was denied, consequently rendering the claim for punitive damages moot.

Partition ActionReal PropertyJoint TenancyTenancy in CommonConstructive TrustUnjust EnrichmentConversion of FundsQuasi-marital RelationshipProperty DisputeEquitable Remedies
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2011

Moncayo v. Curtis Partition Corp.

Galo Moncayo, a worker at a school construction site, and his wife sued for personal injuries after Galo was struck by falling sheetrock. The incident occurred when another worker was cutting sheetrock, and a piece slipped, falling through an open window frame and hitting Galo on the ground. Plaintiffs alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted defendants' cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a). The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the sheetrock was not being hoisted or secured, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) was inapplicable as the area was not normally exposed to falling objects.

construction accidentfalling objectLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)summary judgmentliabilitypersonal injuryappealworker injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seminerio v. Glen Partitions, Inc.

Decedent's disability due to asbestos-related occupational diseases was established in 1988 and 1996. The employer's workers' compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for these disability benefits, which was initially granted. Following the decedent's death in 2003, his widow filed a claim for death benefits, which were subsequently awarded. The carrier appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, which denied reimbursement for the death benefits due to the carrier's failure to file a separate notice of claim. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, holding that in dust disease claims, strict compliance with the separate filing requirement for disability and death benefit reimbursement applications may not be required, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(f)Workers' Compensation Law § 15(8)(ee)Special Disability FundReimbursementDust DiseaseAsbestosisDeath BenefitsOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewFiling Requirements
References
5
Case No. ADJ8229086 ADJ8229099
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

DANIEL MARTINEZ vs. CONSOLIDADTED PARTITIONS, MARKEL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, SOUTHERN INSURANCE, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal and denied the Petition for Reconsideration. While the WCJ's decision addressed a threshold issue making it final, the petitioner only challenged an interlocutory finding. Removal was denied because the petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Thus, the prior decision stands, and further challenges are limited.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Reconsiderationthreshold issueinterlocutory issuefinal decisionnon-final decisionextraordinary remedysignificant prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedy
References
4
Case No. 04-19-00485-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Rob Jennings, III and El Veleno, Ltd. v. Susan Jennings, Tres Mujeres, Ltd., and Pamela J. Person

This case involves a dispute over a Rule 11 Settlement Agreement to dissolve a limited partnership and partition the Mira Flores Ranch. Appellants, Rob Jennings III and El Veleño, Ltd., repudiated the Agreement. Appellees, Susan Jennings, Tres Mujeres, Ltd., and Pamela J. Person, filed a motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract action and sought specific performance. The trial court granted the motion, ordered specific performance, and severed the order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the Agreement was an enforceable contract and that the Appellants had waived the forty-five-day deadline for executing dissolution documents.

Partnership DisputeSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationMaterial TermsTimely PerformanceWaiver
References
66
Case No. No. 10-03-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2005

Sue Walston v. David L. Lockhart and Rebecca G. Lockhart

Sue Walston, appearing pro se, filed a bill of review concerning a 1994 judgment to partition her former home, seeking its return. The trial court dismissed her case with prejudice and enjoined her from filing another lawsuit regarding the property. Walston appealed, raising issues including improper notice, insufficient evidence of fraud, denial of jury trial, statute of limitations, res judicata, abuse of discretion in dismissing the case, and the validity of the anti-suit injunction. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice under Rule 13 due to Walston's groundless and harassing litigation, and upheld the permanent injunction against her.

Bill of ReviewProperty PartitionDivorceRes JudicataStatute of LimitationsCourt SanctionsFrivolous LawsuitHarassmentAnti-Suit InjunctionAppellate Procedure
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 22 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