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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Case No. 14-09-00635-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Xenos Yuen, Siegel Yuen & Honore, PLLC, Law Office of Xenos Yuen, PC v. James Gerson

This case involves an appeal by Xenos Yuen, Siegel, Yuen & Honore, PLLC, and Law Office of Xenos Yuen, P.C. (appellants) against James Gerson (appellee). The appellants challenged a judgment ordering them to pay $25,000 to Gerson as sanctions. The trial court had sanctioned the appellants under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13, Chapters 9 and 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and section 17.50(c) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The appellate court found the evidence legally insufficient to support sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapters 9 and 10 because the appellants did not sign the objectionable pleadings and lacked jurisdiction for sanctions under section 17.50(c) due to improper service. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding $25,000 and court costs against the appellants and denied Gerson's motion for sanctions.

SanctionsAttorney MisconductFrivolous ClaimsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeBusiness and Commerce CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13JurisdictionLegal SufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yuen v. Gerson

Appellants, Xenos Yuen and his law firms, appealed a judgment from a trial court that ordered them to pay $25,000 to James Gerson as sanctions. Gerson had sought sanctions against the appellants after successfully defending against claims brought by their client, Paul Kwok-Wah Law. The trial court's award was based on findings of violations of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13, Chapters 9 and 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and section 17.50(c) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The appellate court determined that sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapters 9 and 10 were improperly applied to the appellants because they did not sign the objectionable pleadings. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award damages under section 17.50(c) against the appellants due to improper service of process. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding $25,000 and court costs against the appellants, denying Gerson's motion for sanctions.

SanctionsAppellate ReviewTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 9Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Texas Business and Commerce Code Section 17.50(c)Groundless PleadingsAttorney LiabilityJurisdictionDefault Judgment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overnite Transportation Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed an appeal concerning civil contempt. Overnite Transportation Company had sought civil contempt against Teamsters Local Union No. 480 and its officers for violating court orders during a strike. The trial court dismissed Overnite's petition, ruling that compensatory damages for civil contempt were not available if the contemptuous conduct had ceased before the hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that an order declining to hold a party in civil contempt is appealable and that compensatory damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-105 are available for forbidden acts, even if the conduct is no longer ongoing. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Civil ContemptAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentCompensatory DamagesInjunctive ReliefLabor DisputeStrikeTennessee LawJudicial ReviewDouble Jeopardy
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,081 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