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. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. Index No. 500294/2018 Appeal No. 16497-16498-16499 Case No. 2022-00247, 2022-00958, 2022-01285, 2022-02741
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Edgar V.L.

Alison L. initiated proceedings to appoint an Article 81 guardian for her incapacitated brother, Edgar V.L., alleging financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri, who later married Edgar and entered into a prenuptial agreement. Judy S. Mock was appointed temporary guardian and Gary Elias as counsel. Concerns arose when Mock and Elias failed to investigate the marriage and financial transactions. A special guardian, Lissett C. Ferreira, was subsequently appointed to investigate these matters. The Supreme Court removed Mock and discharged Elias due to conflicts of interest and dereliction of fiduciary duties, appointing successor guardian and counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed these orders, ruling that Alison L. had standing and that the court's actions regarding the appointments and removals were a proper exercise of discretion. The court also dismissed an appeal as moot.

Incapacitated personGuardianshipFinancial exploitationPrenuptial agreementFiduciary dutiesAttorney misconductSpecial guardianArticle 81Due processAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05207
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

Smith v. Global Contact Holding Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court order had granted the defendants' motion to compel nonparty appellant Transport Workers Union, Local 100's compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. The union argued improper service of the motion, relying on a statutory provision no longer in effect. The court found that the union had waived its objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to object to jurisdiction in response to a prior motion to compel, despite its counsel receiving the subpoena. Furthermore, the union failed to demonstrate that the motion to compel constituted harassment or annoyance, as it sought compliance with a prior order to turn over relevant documents. A separate motion by defendants for Sandra Lennon to withdraw her appeal was granted.

Appellate DivisionSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to CompelPersonal JurisdictionWaiver of ObjectionCivil ProcedureNonparty AppellantUnion DocumentsDiscovery DisputeJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2019

The People v. Omar Alvarez

Omar Alvarez appealed the denial of his writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He claimed his original appellate counsel failed to challenge his 66 ⅔ years to life sentence as unduly harsh, submitted a deficient brief, and communicated poorly. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that counsel provided meaningful representation, highlighting the discretion afforded to appellate attorneys in selecting arguments. The court found no strategic reason for counsel to pursue an excessive sentence claim given the violent crimes and Alvarez's conduct. Dissenting opinions, however, criticized counsel's overall performance, particularly the brief's quality and the missed opportunity to argue for a sentence reduction, especially considering the defendant's youth at the time of the offense.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselCoram NobisSentence ReviewUnduly Harsh SentenceMeaningful RepresentationCriminal Procedure LawCourt of AppealsNarcotics TraffickingHomicide Conviction
References
50
Case No. 13-99-019-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2000

Russell Todd Bright v. State

Russell Todd Bright appealed the revocation of his community supervision, contesting the trial court's finding of violations concerning payment terms and the effectiveness of his legal counsel. He argued that there was no evidence he violated terms by failing to pay court costs, that he proved an inability to pay, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to object to victim impact testimony. The appellate court sustained his argument regarding the vagueness of court costs but found he failed to establish an inability to pay supervisory fees due to a lack of documentation. Furthermore, the court determined that even if counsel's performance was deficient, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different, given other evidence against him. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the revocation of community supervision was affirmed.

Revocation of Community SupervisionIntoxication AssaultInability to PayIneffective Assistance of CounselVictim Impact TestimonyCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAffirmative DefenseProbation Violation
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 19,339 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