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. 05-97-01076-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Grizzle Ex Rel. Grizzle v. Texas Commerce Bank, N.A.

Linda Grizzle, representing her minor daughter and a proposed class, sued Frost National Bank and Texas Commerce Bank, N.A., alleging damages to trust accounts caused by a bank merger and subsequent liquidation and reinvestment of funds. The claims included breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices. The trial court granted summary judgment for the banks and struck additional class representatives. On appeal, the court reversed the striking of the interventions, allowing other class representatives to join. It also reversed most of the summary judgments in favor of the banks, identifying outstanding factual issues concerning damages and the applicability of exculpatory clauses. The court affirmed that a DTPA tender for individual damages did not moot the class action. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Class ActionTrust AccountsBank MergerFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentDTPAInterventionBreach of ContractNegligenceFraud
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commerce Holding Co., Inc. v. Buckstone

Plaintiff Commerce Holding Company, Inc. sued defendants Stanley and Herbert Buckstone, the Roth defendants (executors of Jerrold Roth's estate), and Tronic Plating Company, Inc. for environmental contamination under CERCLA, RCRA, and various state common law claims related to a hazardous waste site in Farmingdale, New York. Commerce, as the property owner, incurred response costs under an EPA consent order due to Tronic's past discharge of toxic substances and sought relief from the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and Commerce cross-moved for partial summary judgment on CERCLA liability. The Court dismissed the pendent state claims without prejudice, denied the motion to dismiss the CERCLA claim, and deferred decision on the RCRA claim pending further briefing. Commerce's motion for partial summary judgment was denied without prejudice.

Environmental LawCERCLARCRAHazardous Waste SitePollution LiabilityMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPendent JurisdictionResponse CostsNational Contingency Plan
References
19
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Rylander v. Bandag Licensing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General from a district court judgment that awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) recovery of franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. BLC, an Iowa corporation, held a certificate of authority to do business in Texas but had no physical presence or conducted intrastate business in the state, operating solely through interstate commerce. The Comptroller's assessment of franchise taxes, based solely on BLC's certificate of authority, was challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority did not establish a "substantial nexus" with Texas required by the Commerce Clause, nor did it satisfy the minimum contacts for the Due Process Clause. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to BLC, ruling that the amended Tax Code § 112.108, which prohibits such fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, was unconstitutional as an unreasonable financial barrier to court access.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseSubstantial NexusPhysical PresenceDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesGovernmental ImmunityTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. 10-2776-STA-dkv
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2012

Jones v. City of Memphis

The court issued an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, a non-Tennessee citizen volunteering for the National Action Network (NAN), challenged a Tennessee statute that restricted public records access to state citizens, alleging violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the Privileges and Immunities claim, finding that plaintiff's volunteer work was not a 'common calling' and that the requested records lacked 'national political and economic importance.' Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff lacked standing for the Dormant Commerce Clause claim due to no economic injury, concluding that the statute did not discriminate against interstate commerce but rather served legitimate local governmental interests.

Summary JudgmentPrivileges and Immunities ClauseDormant Commerce ClausePublic Records AccessConstitutional LawCivil Rights AdvocacyLegal StandingEconomic DiscriminationState Law ChallengeInterstate Commerce
References
37
Case No. 00 Civ. 778(RMB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2002

Swedenburg v. Kelly

Plaintiffs, including out-of-state wineries and New York consumers, filed an action challenging the constitutionality of New York's Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, specifically its ban on the direct shipment of out-of-state wine. They argued the ban violated the Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, and First Amendment. Defendants, New York State Liquor Authority officials and various intervenors, contended the ban was a valid exercise of state power under the Twenty-first Amendment, aiming to promote temperance, ensure orderly market conditions, and raise revenue. The Court found that New York's ABC Law, particularly its exceptions favoring in-state wineries, facially discriminated against interstate commerce, thus constituting a per se violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court rejected the Twenty-first Amendment defense, concluding the exceptions served economic protectionism, and nondiscriminatory alternatives existed to meet the state's legitimate goals. The Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, denying Defendants' motion, and declared the New York ban on direct shipment of out-of-state wine unconstitutional, scheduling a conference for remedy.

Dormant Commerce ClauseTwenty-first AmendmentAlcoholic Beverage Control LawDirect Wine ShipmentSummary JudgmentEconomic ProtectionismState Liquor AuthorityInterstate CommerceConstitutional LawWine Industry Regulation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shields v. Babbitt

Plaintiff Hunter Schuehle sought a declaratory judgment that the 'take' provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are unconstitutional as applied to the Edwards species, arguing that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate activity and that the Sierra Club's enforcement constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Federal Defendants and Sierra Club moved for summary judgment, contending that the Edwards species affect interstate commerce, Schuehle lacked standing, and his claims were not ripe. The Court found the case justiciable, concluding that Schuehle had standing due to economic harm from reduced pumping and that the claim was ripe despite the lack of direct enforcement action. On the merits, the Court denied Schuehle's motion and granted the defendants' motions, upholding the constitutionality of the ESA's 'take' provision under the Commerce Clause (due to potential future commerce related to genetic diversity, prevention of destructive interstate competition, tourism, and scientific research) and the Treaty Power. The Court also rejected Schuehle's claim of unconstitutional delegation regarding the ESA's citizen suit provision, stating it does not represent an unlawful delegation of rulemaking authority.

Endangered Species ActCommerce ClauseConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentEnvironmental LawWater RightsGroundwater PumpingEdwards AquiferSpecies Protection
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker Bros. Waste v. Dyer County Legislative Body

Plaintiff Barker Brothers Waste, Inc. and Northwest Tennessee Disposal Corporation sued defendant Dyer County Legislative Body and Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) over a waste service contract in Dyer County, Tennessee. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as state competitive bidding statutes. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the Dyer County bidding process was not discriminatory under the Commerce Clause, and that the market participant doctrine would immunize the county's actions even if it were discriminatory. Plaintiffs' Due Process claim was also found to be without merit, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Waste ManagementContract DisputeCommerce ClauseDue ProcessCompetitive BiddingMarket Participant DoctrinePreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionDyer CountyMunicipal Contracts
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salla v. County of Monroe

Lisbon Contractors, Inc., a Pennsylvania firm, was awarded a federal and state-funded sewer line construction contract in Monroe County, New York. The County attempted to enforce Labor Law § 222, which mandated employment preference for New York residents, leading Lisbon to lay off non-resident employees, David Salla and Robert Keppley. Salla, Keppley, and Lisbon sued, arguing § 222 violated the privileges and immunities, commerce, and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution. Special Term declared the statute unconstitutional, a decision affirmed by this court. The court found § 222 unconstitutional under both the privileges and immunities clause and the commerce clause, as it constituted economic protectionism and lacked a substantial relationship to the asserted goal of alleviating unemployment, thereby discriminating against out-of-state workers.

Constitutional LawPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseLabor LawPublic Works ContractsEmployment DiscriminationOut-of-State WorkersState Economic ProtectionismUnemployment ReliefJudicial Review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,210 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