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. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 03-17-00357-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

George Allibone, M.D. v. Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as the Interim Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Juanita Garner, Investigator of the Texas Medical Board And the Texas Medical Board

George Allibone, M.D., appealed the denial of his petition for a protective order against an administrative subpoena issued by the Texas Medical Board. The subpoena sought patient medical and billing records for an investigation into complaints against Allibone. He contended the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and by abusing its discretion in finding the subpoena reasonable and relevant. The appellate court found Allibone waived his complaint regarding missing findings. It also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion, citing the Board's need for complete records for investigation and Allibone's failure to prove the unconstitutionality of the statute requiring compliance. The trial court's order was affirmed.

Medical Board InvestigationAdministrative SubpoenaPhysician RecordsConstitutional RightsDue ProcessJudicial Review of Agency ActionAbuse of DiscretionFourth AmendmentTexas LawProfessional Licensing
References
50
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. 03-12-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2014

the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, and in Their Official Capacities Only, Gay Dodson, Executive Director And Jeanne D. Waggener, President of the Board v. Tiana Jean Witcher

The Texas State Board of Pharmacy indefinitely suspended Tiana Jean Witcher's pharmacist license, citing a reciprocal suspension in North Carolina due to non-compliance with a recovery program. Witcher challenged this, arguing the suspension was arbitrary and based on an invalid unwritten "reciprocal-sanctions policy." The trial court reversed the Board's decision, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the Board's policy was an improperly promulgated "rule" under the Administrative Procedure Act. The appellate court emphasized that such ad hoc rulemaking is a narrow exception not applicable here, thus rendering the Board's indefinite suspension invalid and remanding the case for reconsideration of an appropriate sanction.

Pharmacist License SuspensionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewReciprocal Sanctions PolicyAd Hoc RulemakingTexas State Board of PharmacyAdministrative Procedure ActDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionProfessional Regulation
References
34
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. 03-18-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2018

Joseph Cotropia M.D. v. Texas Medical Board and in His Official Capacity Only, Sherif Zaafran, President of the Texas Medical Board

Appellant Joseph Cotropia, M.D., challenged the Texas Medical Board's revocation of his license to practice medicine. The Board's decision stemmed from his failure to adequately supervise advanced practice nurses at two pain management clinics, resulting in substandard patient care and operation of an uncertified clinic. Dr. Cotropia argued against being held strictly liable for the APNs' actions, the clinic's certification status, the admissibility of expert testimony, and alleged due process violations. The appeals court reviewed the Board's findings under a substantial-evidence standard. Ultimately, the court found no error in the district court's judgment and affirmed the revocation of his license.

Medical License RevocationPhysician SupervisionAdvanced Practice NursesPain Management ClinicStandard of CareMedical Practice ActAdministrative LawDue ProcessExpert TestimonyTexas Medical Board
References
15
Case No. 18-1223
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2021

Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners Patrick Fortner, in His Official Capacity as the Board's Executive Director And Texas Chiropractic Association v. Texas Medical Association

This decade-long case addresses the legal boundary between chiropractic and medical practices in Texas. The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) issued rules defining the musculoskeletal system and subluxation complex to include nerves, and also authorized chiropractors to perform Vestibular-Ocular-Nystagmus Testing (VONT). The Texas Medical Association (TMA) challenged these rules, arguing they allowed chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the Board's rules are valid. The Court concluded that the rules, read in context with other referral requirements, appropriately clarify the scope of chiropractic practice without infringing upon medical neurology, and that VONT can be used by chiropractors for diagnostic purposes within their defined scope.

Chiropractic PracticeMedical RegulationScope of PracticeAdministrative LawAgency RulemakingTexas Supreme CourtMusculoskeletal SystemSubluxation ComplexVONT TestingStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 23,647 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