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

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. 01801-9209-OT-00103
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1994

Petition of Burson

The Attorney General and the State Board of Equalization petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514, which permits non-attorney agents to represent taxpayers before boards of equalization. Petitioners argued this statute sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law, infringing upon the judiciary's inherent authority. After appointing a Special Master who found that such services did not constitute the practice of law and upheld the statute, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master's factual findings. The Court affirmed the Special Master's legal conclusions as modified, ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 does not sanction the unauthorized practice of law and is constitutional, thereby upholding the legislative act.

Unauthorized Practice of LawConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityLegislative AuthorityProperty TaxationTaxpayer RepresentationAdministrative LawNon-attorney AgentsTennessee Constitution
References
31
Case No. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Livery Owners Coalition v. State Insurance Fund

This case addresses the constitutionality of a Workers’ Compensation Law amendment defining livery car base owners as employers of independent owner-operators for workers' compensation purposes. The Livery Owners Coalition sought an injunction against the State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board to prevent enforcement of this statute, while the defendants sought dismissal and a declaration of the statute's constitutionality. The court, deferring to the agencies' interpretation, found their stance reasonable in expanding workers' compensation coverage and ensuring operator protection. It also determined that the statute and its application have a rational basis and do not violate equal protection. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied, and the defendants' application to dismiss the complaint and declare the statute constitutional was granted.

ConstitutionalityWorkers' Compensation LawLivery IndustryIndependent ContractorsEmployer DefinitionStatutory InterpretationEqual ProtectionInjunctionRational Basis ReviewState Agencies
References
7
Case No. 05-18-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2018

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

The appellant, Darlene C. Balistreri-Amrhein, filed a second docket statement in her appeal (No. 05-18-00567-CV) to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, from an original proceeding in Collin County. She appeals against multiple parties, including attorneys, law firms, banks, and judges, alleging legal malpractice, fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process and constitutional rights. The appellant claims the lower court lacked proper jurisdiction, made unlawful orders, and discriminated against her due to age, disabilities, and pro se litigant status. She specifically contests a "vexatious litigant" order, stating it is unsupported and unlawful, and seeks reversal of all adverse orders and costs. The appellant also highlights her severe medical conditions, including scheduled surgeries, and requests a medical stay or inactive docket status due to her incapacitation, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

AppealCivil ProcedureDue ProcessJudicial MisconductFraud on CourtVexatious LitigantMedical StayDisability RightsJurisdictionLegal Malpractice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZOLFAGHARI, MOSTAFA v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a ladder while removing a satellite dish at a gas station. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) and granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the main complaint. The court also granted Atlanta's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Exxon's third-party complaint for contractual indemnification, citing an express negation of third-party beneficiary intent. On appeal, the higher court rejected the plaintiff's arguments concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining the work did not constitute 'alteration' or 'demolition'. Furthermore, Exxon's appeal regarding its coverage under the indemnification agreement was also rejected.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentLadder FallSatellite Dish RemovalAlteration of BuildingDemolitionContractual IndemnificationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman Catholic Diocese v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Plaintiff, a self-insured employer, sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for payments made to claimants prior to 1994. The requests were denied as untimely under 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), which established new filing deadlines. Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of these time limitations, asserting claims of actual and constructive trust, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that plaintiff had no constitutionally protected property interest in the Fund and that due process was satisfied by the legislative enactment and its grace period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessProperty RightsLegislative AmendmentsStatute of LimitationsSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 19,789 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