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

First Baptist Church of Olean v. Grey

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a summary judgment motion by American States Insurance Company, which sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify First Baptist Church of Olean (the Church) in an underlying personal injury action. The injury occurred in November 2000 when John S. Grey fell 20 feet from a ladder while performing construction work for the Church. The Church notified its insurer, American States, almost three years after the accident. American States disclaimed coverage due to the Church's failure to provide prompt notice as required by the policy. The dissent argues that the Supreme Court erred in denying American States' motion, concluding that the Church's delay in notification was unreasonable given its awareness of Grey's serious injury, and therefore American States should be absolved of its coverage obligations.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy ProvisionsCondition PrecedentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentGood-Faith BeliefLiability Assessment
References
14
Case No. 13-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L & L Associates Holding Corp. v. Charity United Baptist Church

Petitioner L & L Associates Holding Corp. initiated a nonpayment eviction proceeding against Charity United Baptist Church for alleged rent arrears. The court, presided over by Judge Michael A. Ciaffa, examined the sufficiency of service of process. The petitioner attempted service by affixing the petition to the church door and mailing it to the church's address. The court ruled that this method was legally insufficient, stating that an unincorporated church, treated as an unincorporated association under New York law, must be sued by naming and serving a representative natural person, such as its president or treasurer, to establish jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed without prejudice due to improper service and a separate jurisdictional defect concerning the proof of rent demand.

EvictionNonpaymentUnincorporated AssociationService of ProcessReligious Corporations LawGeneral Associations LawRPAPL 735Jurisdictional DefectActual NoticeDue Process
References
6
Case No. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 3-93-124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Reuters America, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas, and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that taxed information services but exempted newspapers. Reuters argued this violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Comptroller had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes based on its classification as an information service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the tax, concluding that it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it was not content-based, did not target a small group of speakers, and was a generally applicable sales tax. The court also found that the tax scheme was rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as promoting literacy and administrative economy, and therefore did not violate equal protection.

Constitutional LawTaxationFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionInformation Services TaxNewspaper ExemptionTexas Court of AppealsFreedom of PressState Tax SchemeJudicial Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04054
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Episcopal Church Home & Affiliates, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (plaintiff) assumed administration of the Long Term Care Risk Management Group, a self-insurance trust, and levied assessments against its former members (defendants) to cover an accumulated deficit. Defendants appealed an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment, raising issues regarding the summons's jurisdictional sufficiency, the timeliness of plaintiff's subsequent assessments, and the applicability of a collection fee. The Appellate Division determined the summons was jurisdictionally sound and that the statutory 120-day period for levying assessments was directory, not mandatory, thus upholding the validity of later assessments. However, the Court modified the order by dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a collection fee, ruling that the fluctuating and unliquidated nature of the deficit did not meet the "liquidated sum" requirement of State Finance Law § 18. Consequently, the appeal was partially dismissed, the order and judgment modified to remove the collection fee, and affirmed in all other respects.

Group Self-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of AssessmentsJurisdictional DefectSummary JudgmentState Finance LawCollection FeesLiquidated DebtAppellate Review
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,862 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