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. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06024 [153 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2017

In Re Dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc.

The case involves the judicial dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc., a closely-held corporation. Petitioners, Vladimir Chomiak, Leon Chomiak, and Leonora Chomiak, sought dissolution alleging oppressive conduct and looting of corporate assets by respondents, Tatiana Chomiak Kasian, Tamara L. Chomiak, and the estate of Leo Chomiak. Supreme Court granted the dissolution, finding that respondents engaged in actions such as awarding themselves unjustified bonuses, issuing undervalued stock to dilute petitioners' ownership, and attempting to force petitioners to sell their shares. The court also found that respondents looted corporate assets through unsubstantiated loans. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vladimir Chomiak had standing, the proceeding was not time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations for equitable breach of fiduciary duty claims, and there was ample evidence to support findings of oppressive actions and looting of corporate assets.

corporate dissolutionminority shareholder oppressionbreach of fiduciary dutycorporate lootingdilution of sharesstatute of limitationsstandingclosely-held corporationappellate reviewfiduciary relationship
References
20
Case No. 07-02-0528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2005

in the Matter of the Marriage of Mary Becky Gonzalez and Eusebio Ramirez Gonzalez

Eusebio Ramirez Gonzalez appealed a default divorce decree that terminated his marriage to Mary Becky Gonzalez, challenging the property division and the denial of his motion for new trial. Gonzalez, who does not read English, failed to file an answer, alleging he believed a property settlement was agreed upon and he was advised not to appear. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Gonzalez did not establish a meritorious defense for a new trial, specifically regarding claims of unequal community property division or separate property contributions. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the property division and determined that the due process argument was not preserved for appellate review.

DivorceCommunity Property DivisionDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialMeritorious DefenseAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexas Court of AppealsDue Process
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

O'Reilly-Morshead v. O'Reilly-Morshead

This case addresses the equitable distribution of assets acquired during a civil union, entered into in Vermont, by a couple who later married in Canada and resided in New York. The plaintiff initiated a divorce action, and the defendant counterclaimed for the dissolution of the civil union and distribution of assets acquired during that period. The court determined it had jurisdiction to dissolve the civil union but, applying New York Domestic Relations Law, held that marital property is strictly defined from the date of marriage. Consequently, the court denied equitable distribution of any assets acquired during the civil union prior to the marriage, granting summary judgment for the defendant on the dissolution of the civil union but reserving the distribution of marital property and the right to divorce for trial.

Civil UnionEquitable DistributionDomestic Relations LawMarital PropertyNew York LawVermont LawConflict of LawsSame-Sex MarriageSummary JudgmentDivorce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Examiners v. Texas Medical Ass'n

The Texas Medical Association challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists that permits licensed marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to provide diagnostic assessments. The Medical Association argued that this rule is invalid because the Texas Occupations Code does not authorize MFTs to provide such assessments, reserving this authority primarily for medical licensees. The Therapists Board contended that their authorizing statute, the Texas Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists Act, permits evaluations which encompass diagnostic assessments, and that "diagnose" is a type of "evaluate" in this context. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed with the Therapists Board, concluding that the Therapists Act authorizes MFTs to provide diagnostic assessments as described in the rule, and the Medical Practice Act does not prohibit it. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment that the rule is valid.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentTexas Occupations CodeMedical Practice ActScope of PracticeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawProfessional LicensingMental Health DiagnosisRule Validity
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Employers Indemnity Company v. Aguirre

This is a workers' compensation case where the appellees, Hellen Aguirre (common-law wife) and three minor children, sought benefits after the death of Serapio Aguirre. The jury found that Serapio sustained a compensable injury during his employment with Hearne Steel Company, which led to his death. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for a compensable injury and challenging the validity of the common-law marriage due to a prior ceremonial marriage. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings regarding the compensable injury and the dissolution of the prior marriage.

Workers' CompensationCommon Law MarriagePre-existing ConditionCerebral AneurysmMedical CausationJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution PresumptionEmployee Death Benefits
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2005

Hernandez v. Robles

Justice Saxe's dissenting opinion argues that New York's Domestic Relations Law, by restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the State Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The dissent asserts that the right to marry encompasses the right to choose one's spouse, regardless of gender, and that this denial constitutes legalized discrimination against homosexuals. It advocates for heightened scrutiny in reviewing laws based on sexual orientation or, alternatively, finds no legitimate state interest under rational basis review to justify the exclusion. The opinion critiques traditional definitions of marriage and emphasizes the judiciary's role in protecting minority rights against majoritarian biases.

Same-Sex MarriageEqual ProtectionDue ProcessConstitutional LawMarriage RightsDiscriminationSexual OrientationHeightened ScrutinyRational Basis ReviewFundamental Rights
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. 417-56531-2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

in Re: Roger Arash Farahmand

Roger Arash Farahmand filed for divorce from Maryam Farahmand, citing insupportability due to her alleged mental health issues, suicide attempts, and erratic behavior, which he claims endangered their child. He also raised an allegation of bigamy against Maryam, asserting a prior undissolved marriage. Maryam denied these allegations, arguing the prior ceremony was not a valid marriage and that Roger's claims were for tactical advantage. The court issued temporary orders, appointing Roger and Maryam as joint managing conservators with Roger as primary. It mandated Maryam to continue psychological treatment and ordered all passports to be surrendered to the court registry. The case involves complex financial disputes and allegations of discovery misconduct.

DivorceChild CustodyMental HealthSubstance Abuse AllegationBigamy AllegationTemporary OrdersFinancial DisputesDiscovery SanctionsDomestic ViolenceParental Alienation
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 220 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