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

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. 02-13-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Thomas A. Wilder, District Clerk v. Odell Campbell, Thomas Ray Robertson, Shawnta Renea Coleman, Scott Wiernik, Tairhonda McAfee, Marybeth Lynn Jewell, and Diana J. Najera

Justice Anne Gardner dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction against the district clerk. The injunction aimed to prevent the clerk from taxing and collecting court costs from indigent appellees who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigence. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 allows indigent parties to proceed without paying costs, and an uncontested affidavit of indigence is conclusive. The judge also argues that section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not defeat jurisdiction because the injunction does not attack the validity of the divorce judgments but rather the district clerk's ministerial duty regarding cost taxation. Furthermore, the opinion states that individual motions to retax costs would not be an adequate legal remedy due to the potential for a multiplicity of suits, and the appellees have standing to challenge a systematic policy of the district clerk.

Temporary InjunctionCourt CostsIndigenceRule 145JurisdictionMinisterial DutyFamily LawPro Se LitigantsAccess to JusticeAppellate Court
References
25
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 15-25-00142-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2025

Robert Edward Battaile v. Texas Elections Division; Hon. Jane Nelson; Texas Secretary of State

The Appellant, Robert Edward Battaile, pro se, filed a motion in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to supplement the clerk's record with 11 omitted filings from the trial court, asserting these items are crucial for the appeal. The underlying case originates from a petition to contest the 2024 Manor, Texas City Council and Mayoral Election, including claims of election coercion, historic site destruction, civil rights violations, and unconstitutional jail conditions against various state, county, and municipal entities, and private developers. Battaile also raises concerns about improper application of Rule 91a, judicial silence on motions, and requests the appointment of a Special Master and oversight tribunals. He further seeks to waive sovereign immunity for the defendants due to alleged constitutional violations and ultra vires acts.

Election ContestCivil Rights ViolationsPublic Funds MisuseHistoric PreservationMunicipal GovernanceAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessUltra Vires ActsPolice MisconductLand Use and Zoning
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R.

This case is a contempt proceeding initiated against the Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company and its officials for violating a temporary injunction issued on August 3, 1927. The injunction aimed to prevent interference with employees' self-organization and representation under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the defendants deliberately nullified the injunction by promoting the 'Association of Clerical Employees' while actively undermining the 'Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks'. The judge issued a remedial order, requiring the disestablishment of the company-backed association, re-establishment of the Brotherhood as the employees' representative, restoration of positions and privileges for affected Brotherhood officers and members, and a referral to government law officers to consider criminal contempt charges.

Labor LawContempt of CourtInjunction ViolationRailway Labor ActEmployee RepresentationCollective BargainingUnionizationEmployer InterferenceUnfair Labor PracticesJudicial Enforcement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Case No. 13-CV-7588 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

New York State Court Clerks Ass'n v. Unified Court System

The New York State Court Clerks Association and Monica Shaw Burns filed a lawsuit against several New York State Judges, the Unified Court System (UCS), and the Office of Court Administration (OCA), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to uncompensated overtime work. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court granted the motions, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against UCS, OCA, and the State Judges in their official capacities, as Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the FLSA. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the State Judges were 'employers' under the FLSA's 'economic reality' test, and that employees cannot seek injunctive relief under FLSA. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionState Judicial OfficialsOfficial Capacity SuitEconomic Reality Test
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1992

Town of Newburgh v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n

This case involves an appeal concerning an arbitration award related to a collective bargaining agreement. The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitrator's award that mandated salary increases for incumbent typist employees to match a new hire's salary rate. The respondent, Civil Service Employees Association, cross-petitioned to confirm the award. The Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the judgment was modified; the appellate court vacated the portion of the arbitration award concerning the specific salary increase and remitted the matter to the arbitrator. The court affirmed that the timeliness of a grievance is an arbitrator's domain but found the arbitrator exceeded authority by fashioning a remedy outside the collective bargaining agreement's explicit limitations. The case was remitted for a modified award consistent with the agreement's terms.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementSalary DisputeExceeding AuthorityProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewContractual LimitationsGrievance ProcedureTypist SalariesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mead v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees

A General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (B.R.A.C.) sought an injunction against the International Union to prevent the transfer of funds from local lodge treasuries to a new Express Division in New York City, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) due to potential fund mismanagement. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the transfers were approved and lacked proof of present fiscal mismanagement. The court, adopting a restrictive view of Section 501 focused solely on financial dealings, determined that the plaintiff's claims, without evidence of current mismanagement, did not establish a legally cognizable cause of action. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Union DisputesLabor UnionsInter-union Funds29 U.S.C. 501Injunctive ReliefMotion DismissalRestrictive Statutory InterpretationFinancial OversightOrganizational ReorganizationFederal Labor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline, and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees (BRAC) and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW). BRAC sought enforcement of Public Law Board 1186's Award No. 316, which found SSW violated a collective bargaining agreement by using an outside contractor, ordering penalty pay. SSW contested the award, arguing the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by granting penalty pay without explicit contractual language. The court, referencing Fifth Circuit precedent like *Georgia Railway*, affirmed the Board's authority to award penalty pay based on industry practice and the collective bargaining agreement's essence, even without an express provision. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of BRAC, denying SSW's cross-petition, and awarded BRAC attorney's fees and costs.

Summary JudgmentRailway Labor ActArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementPenalty PayPublic Law BoardJurisdictionAttorney's FeesContract ViolationIndustrial Justice
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 228 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