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

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. 2-06-191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2008

in the Interest of D.W., T.W., and S.G., Children

Appellant Betty W. appealed a final order terminating her parental rights to her three children. She raised four issues: the constitutionality of a one-year dismissal deadline, the denial of her motion to extend that deadline, the constitutionality of a statute barring appellate review of unlisted issues (section 263.405(i)), and a due process violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding that Betty failed to preserve her first issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to extend the deadline. However, the court held that section 263.405(i) violated the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. Ultimately, the order terminating parental rights was affirmed as Betty did not provide a record for her second issue.

Parental Rights TerminationSeparation of PowersAppellate ProcedureTexas Family CodeDue ProcessChild WelfareAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional Law
References
123
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. 2-06-191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2008

In Re DW

Betty W. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children, D.W., T.W., and S.G. She challenges the constitutionality of the one-year dismissal deadline under the Texas Family Code, the denial of her motion to extend this deadline, and the constitutionality of a provision barring appellate review of issues not listed in a statement of points. The Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, overrules her first issue due to lack of preservation. It holds the provision barring review of unlisted issues unconstitutional as a violation of the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. However, the court affirms the trial court's denial of Betty's motion to extend the dismissal deadline, finding no abuse of discretion. Consequently, the final order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationTexas Family CodeAppellate ProcedureSeparation of PowersConstitutional LawDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionChild AbuseFoster CareExtension of Time
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency v. Maxwell

This case involves the constitutionality of former TEX.EDUC.CODE § 35.030, which mandated confidentiality for TAAS tests and prevented parents from viewing them. Larry Maxwell and other parents sued the Texas Education Agency and other defendants, asserting violations of their constitutional rights, particularly their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and education. The trial court initially found the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction. However, while the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed Section 35.030, rendering the core constitutional issue moot. The appellate court vacated the injunction as moot but reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 despite the mootness of the primary issue.

Parental RightsEducation LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMootness DoctrineAttorney's FeesCivil RightsTexas Education CodeTAAS Tests
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case involves HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals (collectively, "the Hospitals") who filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas Department of Insurance, its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), and Commissioner Albert Betts, Jr. The Hospitals sought to reverse 1,406 decisions issued by DWC and challenged the facial constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) for allegedly failing to provide a right to a contested case hearing in medical disputes. Texas Mutual Insurance Company also intervened. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Hospitals and Texas Mutual on the right to a hearing but denied the Hospitals' request to set aside the 1,406 DWC orders. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Hospitals' request to set aside the DWC decisions, citing a lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeals. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court's declaration that former § 413.031(k) was facially unconstitutional, rendering judgment that the statute is indeed facially constitutional.

Medical Dispute ResolutionWorkers' CompensationTexas Labor CodeFacial ConstitutionalityJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Covert v. Niagara County

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,622 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