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

ICG Link, Inc. v. Philip Steen v. TN Sports, LLC v. ICG Link, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between ICG Link, Inc., a website development company, and Nashville Sports Leagues, LLC, TN Sports, LLC, and Philip Steen, regarding payment for website development services. The trial court found no express contract but imposed a quasi-contract, awarding ICG $27,806.34 and holding Philip Steen personally liable. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's finding of a quasi-contract and Mr. Steen's personal liability. However, the appellate court modified the monetary award, determining ICG was entitled to $13,952.88 after accounting for the value of benefits received and deductions.

Website DevelopmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitPersonal LiabilityLLCMutual AssentContract IndefinitenessAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 03-15-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

Gregory Joe Wickline v. Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges, Acting for and on Behalf of Oklahoma State University And James Michael Holder, in His Individual Capacity and in His Capacity as Vice President for Athletic Programs and Director Of

Coach Gregory Joe Wickline terminated his employment with Oklahoma State University (OSU) to become the Offensive Coordinator at the University of Texas (UT). OSU and its Athletic Director, James Michael Holder, alleged Wickline's new role did not meet the 'safe harbor' provision of his OSU contract, which would have excused him from paying liquidated damages for early termination. OSU sued Wickline in Oklahoma for breach of contract. Wickline then filed a lawsuit in Texas seeking a declaratory judgment to construe the contract's 'Offensive Coordinator (with play calling duties)' phrase and alleging tortious interference with his UT contract. The trial court in Travis County, Texas, dismissed Wickline's claims without prejudice based on a mandatory forum-selection clause in the OSU contract.

Contractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseTortious InterferenceDeclaratory JudgmentEmployment ContractCoaching DisputeLiquidated DamagesOklahoma State UniversityUniversity of TexasJudicial Interpretation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n

Brentwood Academy sued the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) and its Executive Director, Ronnie Carter, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to TSSAA's Recruiting Rule. The court found the rule unconstitutional as applied to Brentwood Academy for its 'Spring Practice Letter' and complimentary tickets, ruling it was not narrowly tailored, violated substantive due process due to vagueness and lack of notice, and procedural due process because of the consideration of ex parte evidence during deliberations. Consequently, the court declared the August 23, 1997 penalties imposed by the TSSAA against Brentwood Academy void and enjoined them.

Education LawSports LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessFreedom of SpeechRecruiting RuleState ActorUnconstitutional As AppliedInjunctive Relief
References
35
Case No. 19-0497
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2021

in Re Academy, Ltd. D/B/A Academy Sports + Outdoors

This case concerns a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Academy Sports + Outdoors, a retailer from which the perpetrator of the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting purchased a weapon. The plaintiffs, victims and their families, sued Academy for negligence and related claims. Academy sought summary judgment under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally shields firearm retailers from liability for third-party criminal conduct, but the trial court denied it. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the PLCAA's predicate exception (for knowing violation of a statute applicable to sale) or negligent entrustment exception applied. The Court held that Academy did not violate the Gun Control Act regarding the sale of the rifle or magazines, and that Texas law does not recognize negligent entrustment based on a sale. Consequently, the PLCAA bars the lawsuits, and the Court conditionally granted Academy's petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to grant summary judgment.

Firearm liabilityPLCAAMandamusSummary judgmentNegligent entrustmentGun Control ActStatutory interpretationFederal preemptionTexas Supreme CourtProduct liability
References
50
Case No. 13-00-578-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2002

Tony Bender, D/B/A Master Trainer Co. v. Ruben Moya

Tony Bender d/b/a Master Trainer Co. appealed a take-nothing judgment in his suit for breach of contract and fraud against Ruben Moya. Bender alleged Moya failed to obtain building permits for a dog kennel facility, leading to stop-work orders from the City of Corpus Christi. The jury found that Moya did not agree to obtain the permits. Bender contended that the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instruction, which incorporated an implied covenant for contractors to comply with relevant city codes. The appellate court distinguished the referenced case, noting Bender's knowledge of platting requirements and the lack of evidence that Moya agreed to plat the property. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction.

Breach of ContractFraudJury InstructionAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionImplied CovenantConstruction ContractBuilding PermitsPlatting RequirementsCity Codes
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04590 [162 AD3d 950]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sullivan v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y.

John Sullivan sued New York Athletic Club of City of New York (NYAC) and Talisen Construction Corporation (Talisen) for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence, sustained while carrying a heavy beam down stairs during a bathroom renovation. Talisen and NYAC sought indemnification from Premier Woodcraft, Ltd. (Premier), Sullivan's employer and a subcontractor. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Premier's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and contractual indemnification claims (except for defense costs). The court also granted Talisen's cross-motion for defense costs against Premier, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Sullivan on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding his injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard, and for both parties regarding breach of insurance agreements due to unresolved factual issues.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related HazardContractual IndemnificationBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Villegas v. El Paso Independent School District

Plaintiffs, athletic trainers employed by El Paso Independent School District, sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and for breach of contract and declaratory relief under Texas law. They alleged being required to work beyond contracted days and on weekends/holidays without additional compensation. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the Plaintiffs were exempt employees under the 'learned professional' exemption of the FLSA. The Court, presided over by District Judge Cardone, found that athletic trainers in a Texas school district are exempt employees under the FLSA, thus dismissing the federal FLSA claims. Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

FLSAOvertime CompensationExempt EmployeeLearned Professional ExemptionMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionAthletic TrainersTexas LawBreach of Contract
References
16
Case No. ADJ10565692
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

BRIAN CLARK vs. LOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a sports athletic trainer, Brian Clark, who sustained head and psyche injuries at work. Both the applicant and the defendant sought reconsideration of the initial award. The applicant argued his occupational group was misclassified, while the defendant contended the judge wrongly rejected the medical evaluator's apportionment of permanent disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both petitions, upholding the original findings. The Board found the applicant failed to prove factual error in his occupational group classification and adopted the WCJ's reasoning regarding the apportionment.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLOS RIOS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTYORK RISK SERVICES GROUPFindings and Awardsports athletic traineroccupational group 390occupational group 311permanent disability apportionmentPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)substantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holder v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

Plaintiff, Buford T. Holder, sustained a severe right shoulder injury after slipping and falling in his employer's parking lot during a lunch break on January 10, 1984. The employer, Wilson Sporting Goods Company, and its insurer initially treated the injury as compensable but later disputed coverage, arguing it did not arise out of employment. The trial court found the injury compensable and awarded Holder 50% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the defendants challenged both the compensability and the extent of disability. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing between 'en route' and 'on-premises lunch break' cases and finding the injury compensable. The Court also upheld the disability assessment, considering vocational factors beyond anatomical impairment, and denied the motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal.

Worker's Compensation AppealOn-Premises Lunch Break InjurySlip and Fall AccidentEmployer's Parking LotPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational RehabilitationAnatomical ImpairmentLoss of Earning CapacityCompensability of InjuryFrivolous Appeal Denial
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 131 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