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

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. v. Serio

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Superintendent of Insurance, dated January 29, 2003, which reclassified parking ramp cashiers of Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. (BCAR) from clerical "office employees" (Code 8810) to "automobile parking lot and drivers" (Code 8392) for workers’ compensation purposes. BCAR challenged this reclassification, arguing it was unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious, as their cashiers' duties were comparable to other clerical workers classified under Code 8810. The court found the Superintendent's determination lacked substantial evidence, noting no proof of increased hazard for BCAR cashiers compared to pari-mutuel clerks or bus terminal cashiers. The court also deemed the determination arbitrary and capricious due to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated cashiers. Consequently, the court vacated and annulled the Superintendent's determination and remanded the matter to the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board for further proceedings.

ReclassificationWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousInsurance LawClerical ClassificationParking Garage Industry
References
5
Case No. 02-13-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Thomas A. Wilder, District Clerk v. Odell Campbell, Thomas Ray Robertson, Shawnta Renea Coleman, Scott Wiernik, Tairhonda McAfee, Marybeth Lynn Jewell, and Diana J. Najera

Justice Anne Gardner dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction against the district clerk. The injunction aimed to prevent the clerk from taxing and collecting court costs from indigent appellees who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigence. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 allows indigent parties to proceed without paying costs, and an uncontested affidavit of indigence is conclusive. The judge also argues that section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not defeat jurisdiction because the injunction does not attack the validity of the divorce judgments but rather the district clerk's ministerial duty regarding cost taxation. Furthermore, the opinion states that individual motions to retax costs would not be an adequate legal remedy due to the potential for a multiplicity of suits, and the appellees have standing to challenge a systematic policy of the district clerk.

Temporary InjunctionCourt CostsIndigenceRule 145JurisdictionMinisterial DutyFamily LawPro Se LitigantsAccess to JusticeAppellate Court
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. 2-07-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2007

John Leslie Miller v. Southwestern Exposition & Live Stock, Fremont Industrial Insurance Group, Executive Deputy Workers Compensation, and Tex Worker's Compensation Commission

Appellant John Leslie Miller filed a notice of appeal to confirm an arbitration award. However, the trial court clerk indicated that no written order or judgment had been signed in the underlying case, rendering the appeal premature. The court notified Miller of the jurisdictional defect and provided fifteen days to rectify it. As the appellant failed to tender signed orders or provide grounds for continuing the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Premature appealWant of jurisdictionArbitration awardAppellate procedureTrial court orderJudgmentJurisdictional defectTexas Court of Appeals
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. Cunningham

The Secretary of the United States Department of Labor initiated this action against members of the Administrative Committee of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) of Metropolitan Contract Services, Inc. (MCS), alleging violations of ERISA. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed fiduciaries breached their duties by causing the ESOP to purchase MCS stock from Defendant Cunningham for more than adequate consideration and engaging in prohibited transactions. After a bench trial, the court found that the defendants acted in good faith, reasonably relied on an independent appraisal, and that the stock was purchased for no more than adequate consideration. Consequently, all claims brought by the Department of Labor were dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The court also ordered the Department of Labor to pay the defendants' attorney's fees and costs, and awarded fees to Allied Bank of Texas against Defendant Cunningham.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanStock ValuationProhibited TransactionsAdequate ConsiderationIndemnification AgreementsAttorney's FeesClosely Held CorporationsDepartment of Labor Litigation
References
9
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 13-17-00641-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

American Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Co-Trustee of the John Buckley Jr. Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust, Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, Together With John Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Kinard, as Trustee, Co-Trustee and/or Trust Beneficiaries of the John Buckley Jr. Trust, Lisa Marie Buckley Trust and Kelly Rose Kinard Trust, and/or Shareholders v. Moorehead Oil & Gas, Inc., Moorehead Acquisition, LLC, and Moorehead Oil & Gas, LLC

This is an appeal regarding a summary judgment in a proceeding to determine the fair value of ownership interests in corporate stock under the Texas Business Organizations Code. Appellants, consisting of American Bank, N.A. as trustee, and the Buckley family members (John J. Buckley Jr., Lisa Marie Buckley, and Kelly Rose Kinard) as co-trustees and/or beneficiaries of their trusts, challenged the denial of their petition for stock valuation against Moorehead Oil & Gas entities. The key arguments on appeal were whether the Bank was the sole entity capable of requesting a valuation and if the limitations period was tolled due to the misnomer doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Lisa Marie Buckley's claim as a beneficiary due to lack of standing, but reversed the remainder of the judgment, ruling that the first amended petition related back to the timely-filed original petition for limitations purposes and that American Bank, John J. Buckley Jr., and Kelly Rose Kinard had standing as trustees or co-trustees. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentCorporate Stock ValuationDissenting Shareholder RightsTexas Business Organizations CodeTrusts and TrusteesBeneficiary StandingLimitations PeriodMisnomer DoctrineAppellate ProcedureFair Value Appraisal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 407 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