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

Farkas v. Rumore

Union members and plaintiff Lawrence Farkas brought an action against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, and its president Anthony Rumore. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful ratification of a collective bargaining agreement by the union and employer participation in the misconduct, under the LMRDA and LMRA. Plaintiff Farkas also claimed wrongful discharge by the employer and mishandling of his termination arbitration by the union. The court denied summary judgment for the LMRDA claims against the union regarding contract ratification but granted it for the LMRDA claim against Anthony Rumore. Summary judgment was also granted to Coca-Cola on the LMRA ratification claim. Furthermore, Farkas's individual claims for duty of fair representation against the union and breach of collective bargaining agreement against Coca-Cola were dismissed due to his failure to exhaust contractual remedies.

Labor LawLMRDALMRAUnion RightsCollective BargainingContract RatificationDuty of Fair RepresentationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1973

Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corporation

Guerra, a Mexican National and resident alien, was transferred from his job at Manchester Terminal Corporation's Dock and Commodity Department to the Cotton Compress and Warehouse Department in 1965 due to a discriminatory policy by Local 1581 against Mexican Nationals with families in Mexico. Guerra filed charges with the NLRB and EEOC, and later a civil action in district court in 1971, alleging discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court ruled that filing with the NLRB tolled the statute of limitations. While rejecting the Title VII claim, the court found that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects aliens from private discrimination and concluded that the defendants engaged in a discriminatory practice, issuing an injunction and scheduling a damages hearing.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationAlienage DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsTollingNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1948

Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Orr

Mrs. Orr (plaintiff) sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company (defendant) for personal injuries sustained in a collision between her automobile and the defendant's motor bus in Dallas on July 25, 1943. She recovered $10,000.00 in a lower court, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the trial court's refusal to include a special instruction regarding pre-existing conditions and the refusal to send photographs to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, finding that the evidence of prior infirmities was insufficient to warrant the requested special instruction. Additionally, the error in not sending the photographs to the jury was deemed harmless as they were merely cumulative evidence of substantially undisputed facts.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMotor BusNegligenceDamagesPre-existing ConditionsJury InstructionsProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHarmless Error
References
4
Case No. 01-22-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2023

In Re Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC v. the State of Texas

Relator Intercontinental Terminals Company, LLC, informed the Court of Appeals that a settlement had been reached, pending approval from the Department of Labor under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After an initial update regarding settlement approval, no further motion to dismiss the original proceeding was filed. The Court subsequently learned that the trial court had signed orders dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Despite an order requesting a response from the relator, only the real party in interest, Michael Grable, responded, confirming the resolution of the controversy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

MandamusMootnessSettlement AgreementCase DismissalAppellate ProcedureTexas Court of AppealsLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActTrial Court DismissalRelatorReal Party in Interest
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Terminal Railroad Association v. Inge

Lawrence Inge, Jr., an engineer for Port Terminal Railroad Association, sustained personal injuries and filed suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The jury awarded him $282,746, including $200,000 for lost future earning capacity and $17,500 for medical expenses. The court reduced medical expenses to $15,000. On appeal, the appellant complained about the jury's consideration of future inflationary trends and the excessiveness of the lost earning capacity award. The appellate court overruled both points, stating that objections to testimony regarding inflationary trends were not preserved during trial. The court also affirmed the reduction of medical expenses and denied the appellee's cross-points.

Federal Employers’ Liability Actfuture earning capacityinflationary trendsjury verdictappellate reviewmedical expensesdamagespermanent disabilityvocational capabilitieseconomist testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. Texas City Terminal Railway Co.

This case examines whether an injured maritime employee, covered by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), can opt to sue under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). The appellant, Leon A. Simmons, a guard for Texas City Terminal Railway Company, suffered a broken leg on the docks and initially filed a FELA suit. The trial court granted summary judgment, determining LHWCA was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that LHWCA's exclusivity provision (33 U.S.C. § 905(a)) precludes negligence actions against employers and that LHWCA and FELA are mutually exclusive statutes designed for distinct worker categories.

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActFederal Employers’ Liability Actexclusive remedymaritime employmentrailroad employmentnegligenceworkers' compensationstatutory interpretationpersonal injuryappellate review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2002

Termine v. Continental Baking Co.

Salvatore Termine, a plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant, Continental Baking Company (CBC), dismissing his personal injury complaint. Termine was injured in October 1998 while employed by Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC). CBC, the record owner of the property, had merged with its parent IBC in 1995, and its authority to do business in New York terminated shortly thereafter. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that Termine's action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because his employer, IBC, was the actual owner of the property at the time of the accident, not CBC. The court also rejected Termine's argument regarding CBC's failure to file a deed, stating Real Property Law § 291 protects purchasers, not personal injury claimants.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityMerger of CorporationsReal Property OwnershipSummary JudgmentPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityDelaware Corporation LawNew York Business LawDeed Filing
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,715 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