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

Cerminaro v. Board of Regents

The case concerns a petitioner, a licensed registered nurse, who challenged the revocation of her license due to professional misconduct, including sexual contact with a patient and co-workers. Initially, a hearing panel found her guilty based on a "substantial legal evidence" standard. However, during the process, the Education Law was amended to require a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. While the initial panel failed to apply the stricter standard, the Regents Review Committee and the Board of Regents applied the correct standard during their review and affirmed the findings of guilt, recommending license revocation. The court confirmed this determination, finding sufficient evidence to support the decision and concluding that the procedural error was remedied by the subsequent reviews.

professional misconductnurse licenselicense revocationstandard of proofpreponderance of evidencesubstantial legal evidenceEducation Law violationsBoard of Regents decisionsexual misconduct chargesadministrative appeal
References
7
Case No. M1998-00459-SC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1999

Wells v. TN Board of Regents

This direct appeal reviews the Chancery Court’s reversal of the Tennessee Board of Regents’ decision to terminate a tenured faculty member, Dr. Alexander Wells, from Tennessee State University. The termination was based on allegations of "capricious disregard of accepted standards of professional conduct" due to sexual harassment claims. The Supreme Court identified two legal errors made by the Chancellor: disregarding a witness's testimony and misinterpreting the notice requirements for termination. However, despite these errors, the Court ultimately affirmed the Chancery Court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the Chancellor’s finding that the charges were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. The ruling also clarified that formal notice of every allegation is not a prerequisite for termination proceedings, and common sense should guide the understanding of appropriate professional conduct.

Sexual HarassmentTenure TerminationFaculty DismissalDue ProcessAdministrative LawChancery CourtCredibility AssessmentClear and Convincing EvidenceProfessional MisconductJudicial Review
References
20
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Regents v. Fischer

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire the leasehold interests of tenants John J. Fischer and Lone Star Shoe Service, Inc., who operated a shoe repair business. The Regents appealed a trial court's judgment, arguing that the jury instructions on awarding damages for the leasehold interest and lessees' improvements resulted in excessive, double damages. Specifically, the Regents contested the instruction to value improvements at the date of taking (December 11, 1970) rather than at the lease's expiration (July 31, 1973). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the proper date for ascertaining the value of condemned property, including leasehold interests and improvements, is the date of taking. The court found the instructions adequate to guide the jury in determining fair compensation for the lessees.

Eminent DomainCondemnationLeasehold InterestDamagesJury InstructionsProperty ImprovementsDate of TakingMarket ValueTexas LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Tartakoff v. New York State Education Department

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Board of Regents to suspend a licensed clinical social worker's license for two years due to professional misconduct. The petitioner was accused of negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct, specifically for socializing with clients and failing to maintain accurate records between October 2004 and June 2008. The Hearing Panel and Regents Review Committee found the petitioner guilty, leading to a modified penalty of a five-year suspension, with part stayed, and five years of probation. The petitioner challenged the determination, arguing improper admission of client records due to social worker privilege and unfair hearing due to counsel disqualification. The court upheld the determination, finding no violation of privilege and affirming the disqualification of counsel due to a conflict of interest. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and the penalty was not disproportionate.

Professional MisconductSocial Worker LicenseLicense SuspensionCPLR Article 78Board of RegentsNew York State Education DepartmentClient ConfidentialityConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 23,657 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