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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
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. No. 11-08-00293-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 6436-CX
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

in the Interest of S.N., a Child

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating a father's parental rights to his child, S.N. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination proceedings after S.N. and S.M. were removed from the home due to allegations of appellant's abuse towards S.M. and drug use by the parents. The appellant, the father of S.N., pleaded no contest to injury to a child and was sentenced to fifteen years confinement. The trial court terminated his parental rights based on findings that he engaged in criminal conduct resulting in his confinement for over two years and was convicted of injury to a child. On appeal, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of Texas Family Code Ann. Sections 263.405(b) and (i), arguing they violated his due process and equal protection rights by restricting appeals for indigent parents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the statutes constitutional and that the appellant had not demonstrated a due process violation or presented a valid challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseDue ProcessConstitutional LawAccelerated AppealTexas Family CodeTexas Penal CodeIndigent ParentFrivolous AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2009

Nnebe v. Daus

This case involves a putative class action brought by taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance against officials of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the City of New York. Plaintiffs challenged the TLC's policy of summarily suspending taxi drivers' licenses upon arrest without a pre-deprivation hearing, arguing violations of procedural and substantive due process, and Fifth Amendment rights. The court dismissed claims against the TLC due to its non-suable status and found the NYTWA lacked standing. Ultimately, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, determining that neither a pre-deprivation hearing nor a more extensive post-deprivation hearing was constitutionally required given the governmental interest in public safety. The court also rejected substantive due process and fair notice challenges, and dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, closing the case.

Taxi LicensureSummary SuspensionDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentClass ActionStandingGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative LawPublic Safety
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. 14-09-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2010

Michael Kennedy v. Turner Industries Group, LLC

Michael Kennedy, a pro se appellant, challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Turner Industries Group, LLC. Kennedy's claims arose from Turner's denial of his workers’ compensation benefits, asserting due process violations, discrimination, bad faith, and other grievances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Kennedy’s claims. This lack of jurisdiction was due to Kennedy’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not timely appealing the hearing officer's decision to the Division appeals panel. The court also dismissed Kennedy's due process arguments, clarifying that constitutional due process prohibitions apply to state action, not private entities like Turner.

Summary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDue Process ClaimsJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePro Se LitigationTexas Labor CodeEmployment Law DisputeBad Faith Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. City of Dallas

This case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Dallas against A.E. Brewster et al., challenging the City's Sign Ordinance. Brewster contended the Ordinance was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically violating freedom of speech and depriving property without due process. The court applied a standard for summary judgment and a more intense scrutiny for regulations affecting protected speech, while applying rational basis for due process. The court found that the Ordinance directly advances substantial government interests in communications efficiency, safety, and aesthetics, and is not overbroad. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Ordinance's amortization period and landmark designation process do not deny due process or equal protection. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, denying Brewster's claims for injunctive and other relief, finding the Ordinance constitutionally valid.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionCommercial SpeechSummary JudgmentCity OrdinanceZoning RegulationsAmortization PeriodSign Control
References
24
Case No. 03-10-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2011

Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders and Patricia Logterman// Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director v. Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders

This case concerns challenges by current and former employees of the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) against the constitutionality of Senate Bill 103, which converted TYC employment from 'for-cause' to 'at-will.' The plaintiffs, including Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders, and Patricia Logterman, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on alleged wrongful termination, due process violations, defamation, and unconstitutional takings. The district court partially granted and denied TYC's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Castillo's claims for lack of ripeness and the defamation and takings claims for all plaintiffs due to sovereign immunity. It reversed in part, allowing Alvarez-Sanders and Logterman to replead their wrongful-termination/due-process claims for equitable relief against a proper state official, and similarly reversed in part Brantley's wrongful-termination/due-process claim.

Employment LawPublic EmployeesAt-Will EmploymentFor-Cause EmploymentDue ProcessConstitutional LawRetroactive LegislationEx Post Facto LawBill of AttainderSovereign Immunity
References
37
Case No. No. 616CV0440DNHATB
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2016

Brooks v. Roberts

Plaintiffs, New York residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, filed a class action against Samuel D. Roberts, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA). They challenged the termination of their SNAP benefits, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and federal SNAP Act statutes/regulations due to inadequate and untimely notices regarding the 'Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents' (ABAWD) work rules. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction, citing a lack of irreparable harm for the latter. It also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party. However, the court partially granted and partially denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, dismissing due process claims related to ABAWD classification but allowing statutory claims and due process claims related to benefit termination to proceed.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ProgramSNAP BenefitsFood StampsABAWD Work RulesDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentClass CertificationPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissAdministrative Law
References
106
Case No. 2-09-050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2010

Matthew T. Hinterlong v. Arlington Independent School District

Matthew T. Hinterlong appealed a trial court's judgment that he take nothing from Arlington Independent School District (AISD) on his due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claim stemmed from AISD's zero tolerance policy, under which Hinterlong was transferred to an alternative school after a substance smelling like alcohol was found in his vehicle on school property. Hinterlong argued that the policy violated his due process rights by not considering his intent or knowledge of the substance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that AISD provided an "escape mechanism" through which Hinterlong could have presented evidence to overturn the decision, but he failed to do so. Therefore, his as-applied due process challenge failed.

Due ProcessZero Tolerance PolicyStudent DisciplineSchool LawConstitutional Law42 U.S.C. 1983Sufficiency of EvidenceFacial ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeAppellate Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 19,101 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