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

Espada 2001 v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

This case is a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by Pedro Espada, Jr., his political committee Espada 2001, and its treasurer Kenneth Brennan, challenging a March 9, 2006 determination by the New York City Campaign Finance Board that assessed substantial penalties for alleged violations of the New York City Campaign Finance Act. Petitioners sought to annul the determination, raising arguments about timeliness of counterclaim, lack of personal violation findings, impermissible broadening of investigation scope, and insufficient detail of charges. The court annulled all penalties against Kenneth Brennan. It also partially annulled penalties against Pedro Espada, Jr. and Espada 2001 for several violations, while upholding others, resulting in a total civil penalty judgment of $50,700 against Espada, Jr. and Espada 2001 jointly and severally or solely against Espada 2001 for specific violations. The court found that some violations, such as accepting unreported corporate contributions, fraudulent contributions, and failure to provide certain financial documents, were validly imposed against Espada, Jr. and the Committee.

Campaign FinancePolitical PenaltiesCPLR Article 78Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessSelf-IncriminationElection LawPublic Matching FundsCorporate Contributions
References
9
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. 01-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

in Re TMX Finance of Texas, Inc., TitleMax of Texas, Inc., and TMX Finance LLC

Relators (TMX Finance entities) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to prevent the deposition of Otto Bielss. LoanStar argues that Bielss has unique and superior personal knowledge relevant to the case, specifically concerning illegal marketing tactics involving accessing DMV records to acquire LoanStar's customers. LoanStar asserts Bielss, as the former Senior Vice President of Operations for the Texas market, was aware of these allegations and implemented aggressive growth strategies contributing to the misconduct. The District Court previously denied the Relators' motion, finding Bielss to be a fact witness actively involved in TitleMax's operations. LoanStar requests the Court deny the Relators' Petition and affirm the District Court's decision.

MandamusApex Deposition DoctrineDiscoveryFact WitnessCorporate RepresentativeTexas Civil ProcedureIllegal MarketingDMV RecordsLoanStarTitleMax
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herschaft v. New York City Campaign Finance Board

Plaintiff Allen Herschaft moved for reconsideration or relief from judgment after his initial motion for a preliminary injunction was denied and his amended complaint dismissed in an Order dated December 8, 2000. Herschaft challenged the constitutionality of New York City's campaign finance disclosure requirements. The Court applied a strict standard for reconsideration, finding that plaintiff's arguments, including rearguing issues, presenting new evidence, and raising a new equal protection challenge, were largely improper or unavailing. The Court deemed plaintiff's claims of potential harassment speculative and upheld its prior conclusions regarding the constitutionality of the disclosure provisions. Consequently, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, relief from judgment, and a request to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice.

Motion for ReconsiderationRule 59(e)Rule 60(b)Preliminary InjunctionCampaign FinanceDisclosure RequirementsConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree Speech
References
19
Case No. 13-14-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mario Duran and Maria Duran

This case involves an appeal from the 92nd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, regarding the denial of motions for new trial to vacate no-answer and post-answer default judgments entered against Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. in favor of Mario and Maria Duran. The Durans had sued Gonzalez for breach of contract, negligence, and DTPA violations related to a loan for property taxes and alleged failure to purchase insurance, later adding Alamo Home Finance as a defendant. Appellants argued for a new trial based on strict non-compliance with rules of service for Alamo and lack of proper notice of trial settings for Gonzalez. Additionally, both appellants contended they met the Craddock test requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motions for new trial, finding that Alamo was not served in strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez did not receive appropriate notice of trial settings, and both parties satisfied the Craddock equitable factors. The court also denied both parties' motions for appellate sanctions. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialStrict ComplianceService of ProcessDue ProcessCraddock TestAppellate SanctionsBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasma Fab, LLC and Russell McCann v. BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC, a Subsidiary of Texas Capital Bank, N.A. And Scottsdale Insurance Company

Plasma Fab appealed a summary judgment granted to BankDirect and Scottsdale Insurance, disputing the effectiveness of an insurance policy cancellation. Plasma Fab's general liability policy, financed by BankDirect, was cancelled for non-payment prior to a fire loss. The appellate court found BankDirect failed to strictly comply with statutory notice requirements under its power of attorney and its liability limitation clause was unenforceable, thus reversing summary judgment against BankDirect on breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Scottsdale, ruling that the insurer was not obligated to verify the premium finance company's statutory compliance for cancellation and the policy was effectively cancelled before the fire, and not reinstated. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Insurance LawPolicy CancellationPremium FinancePower of AttorneySummary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyDeceptive Trade PracticesNegligent MisrepresentationFair Notice Doctrine
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

Finance Commission v. Norwood

Justice Johnson's dissenting opinion argues that the homeowners lacked standing to challenge the Finance and Credit Union Commissions' interpretations of home equity lending provisions. The dissent contends that the homeowners failed to allege concrete, particularized injury, asserting that a "prospective interest" in home equity loans is insufficient for standing. Justice Johnson criticizes the Court for issuing an advisory opinion and suggests that the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow the homeowners to replead and demonstrate actual or imminent injury and establish subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than ruling on the merits without proper jurisdictional grounds.

StandingJurisdictionAdvisory OpinionsDeclaratory Judgments ActAdministrative Procedures ActHome Equity LoansConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJusticiabilityPleading Requirements
References
43
Case No. 2016-03-1190
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2017

Hughes, Gwendolyn v. Security Finance

Gwendolyn L. Hughes, an assistant manager for Security Finance, filed for an expedited hearing after injuring her right knee upon returning from a smoke break at work on October 24, 2016. She fell on a rug but testified she did not know what caused her to fall. The central legal issue was whether her knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment or was idiopathic. The Court, presided over by Judge Lisa A. Lowe, noted that for an idiopathic injury to be compensable, an employment hazard must cause or exacerbate it. Finding no evidence of an employment hazard causing the fall, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding she was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Knee InjuryIdiopathic FallWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausationBurden of ProofScope of EmploymentInjury Benefits DenialAssistant ManagerTennessee Workers' Compensation
References
7
Case No. 11-18-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

William R. Hickey v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

William R. Hickey appeals the denial of his motion to set aside a no-answer default judgment entered against him. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. filed a petition to foreclose on Hickey's manufactured home after he defaulted on a retail installment contract. Substituted service was granted and executed by posting citation on Hickey's gate after personal service attempts failed. Hickey's motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting improper service and a meritorious defense, was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that substituted service was properly accomplished and Hickey's failure to answer was due to conscious indifference, failing the first prong of the Craddock test.

Default JudgmentSubstituted ServiceMotion to Set AsideAppellate ReviewDue DiligenceService of ProcessCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseForeclosure
References
28
Case No. 11-02-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2003

Lebron v. Citicorp Vendor Finance, Inc.

Ray Lebron d/b/a Lebron Electronics appealed the trial court's denial of class certification. Lebron and Citicorp Vendor Finance, Inc. f/k/a Copelco Capital, Inc. had previously entered into two equipment lease agreements. Citicorp initiated an action against Lebron for alleged non-payment, prompting Lebron to file a counterclaim seeking class action status based on DTPA and usury claims. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision using an abuse of discretion standard. It found that Lebron failed to satisfy the four prerequisites for class certification under Rule 42(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Consequently, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland, affirmed the trial court's order denying class certification.

Class ActionClass CertificationAbuse of DiscretionEquipment Lease AgreementsDTPA ClaimsUsury ClaimsContract LawAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureRule 42
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 243 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