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. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shoga v. Fischer

The petitioner, a prisoner, faced disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and harassment after making inappropriate comments to a social worker about her personal appearance and marital status, despite being told to stop. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty of these charges, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. The court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims regarding improperly denied witnesses and alleged hearing officer bias.

Prison DisciplinaryHarassmentRefusing Direct OrderSubstantial EvidenceWitness DenialHearing Officer BiasAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPrisoner RightsCorrectional Facility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. Monaghan

City police officers sought a temporary injunction and declaratory judgment to invalidate a police commissioner's rule prohibiting police force members from joining labor unions. The court addressed whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm and the likelihood of their success on the merits. It found no irreparable harm, as officers could withdraw union applications or appeal disciplinary actions, leading to full restoration of rights if successful. Furthermore, the court noted that previous rulings in other states consistently upheld the commissioner's authority in such matters. The court also highlighted that the New York State Constitution's provision on employee organization was specifically amended to exclude public employees. Consequently, the motion for a temporary injunction was denied.

Police officersLabor unionsTemporary injunctionDeclaratory judgmentPolice commissionerDisciplinary actionIrreparable harmPublic employeesConstitutional lawFreedom of association
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Young

This case concerns an appeal by attorneys Liza Greene and Corey Mills against a sanctions order issued by a family court. The sanctions were imposed following a 'Joint Motion to Enforce Agreed Order Lifting Stay and Request for Additional Relief' filed in bankruptcy court, primarily targeting attorney Patsy Young for allegedly hindering Ronald Repine's release from jail for child support contempt. The family court sanctioned Greene and Mills not only under Rule 13, as originally sought by Young, but also based on its inherent power, Chapter 10, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed, citing false statements and causing Young's arrest. The appellate court reversed and rendered, finding that the appellants lacked proper notice for sanctions under Chapter 10, inherent power, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed. Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the family court lacked jurisdiction to impose Rule 13 sanctions concerning a motion filed in federal bankruptcy court.

SanctionsAttorney EthicsJurisdictionDue ProcessTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13Bankruptcy LawFamily LawChild Support EnforcementContemptAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Raul Garcia v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This disciplinary action was initiated by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney Raul Garcia for alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court found Garcia in violation of rules concerning fee-splitting with a non-lawyer, assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, and practicing under a trade name, while ruling in his favor on a charge of forming a partnership with a non-lawyer. Garcia appealed the district court's partial summary judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Garcia indeed violated rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) as an employee of a non-profit organization providing legal services.

Legal EthicsAttorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingTrade NameProfessional MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Law
References
16
Case No. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Armando Sanchez, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and Donald W. Patrick, M.D.

This disciplinary action was brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Raul Garcia, a Texas-licensed attorney, for violations of rules 5.04(a), 5.04(b), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the Commission as to rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a), and for Garcia as to rule 5.04(b). Garcia appealed the judgment. At relevant times, Garcia was employed by Cristo Vive, a nonprofit organization that provided immigration-related legal matters. It is undisputed that Cristo Vive charged fees for these legal services and that Cristo Vive has never succeeded in obtaining the required recognition or accreditation.

Attorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingProfessional Conduct RulesTrade Name ViolationLawyer EmploymentNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Legal ServicesSummary JudgmentTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. 03-00-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

Gerald H. Laubach v. State Bar of Texas

Gerald H. Laubach appealed the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas. Laubach had sued the State Bar alleging improper handling of his grievance against an attorney and violations of disciplinary procedures, claiming damages from the misuse of tangible property related to his grievance. The State Bar asserted sovereign and statutory immunity, which the district court upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims involving the negligent use of information in documents. Furthermore, the court noted that the State Bar and its agents are explicitly granted absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in the course of their official duties under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 15.11.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGrievance ProcedureProfessional MisconductState Bar of TexasOrder of DismissalJudicial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort Claim
References
12
Case No. 01-07-01114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2010

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Justice Keyes dissents from the majority's decision, asserting that the State Bar of Texas and its Commission for Lawyer Discipline violated appellant Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s fundamental constitutional due process rights. Izen was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a license suspension after the Advertising Review Committee broadened its investigation into his advertising practices sua sponte, despite an initial offer for administrative resolution. The dissent argues that the Committee failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure alleged violations, contrary to its own rules and the "safe harbor" provision of former Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.07. Justice Keyes concludes that Rule 7.07, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional under both federal and Texas constitutions. Consequently, she would vacate the district court's judgment and dismiss the proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative LawTexas State BarProfessional ConductSafe Harbor
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 10,814 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