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

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

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. Nos. 2-80-127 and 2-80-129 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1985

Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated actions. No. 2-80-127 concerns civil rights counterclaims brought by Jesus Moya against seventeen growers and state officials following the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that curtailed union organizing activities of the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Moya alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. No. 2-80-129 is a class action, originally filed by TFWU and TRLA, challenging the constitutionality of several Texas picketing statutes. The court found that the growers and state officials acted under color of state law, depriving Moya of his First Amendment rights due to the unconstitutional ex parte TRO procedure and the overly broad minority picketing provisions. Moya was awarded $500 in compensatory damages. The court also declared multiple sections of the Texas picketing statutes (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154d, 5154f, and 5154g) unconstitutional. TRLA was denied standing for the constitutional challenges, but Delia Gamez Prince was granted standing. Claims for recovery against the TRO bond were denied.

Workers' RightsFirst AmendmentPicketingTemporary Restraining OrderConstitutional LawCivil Rights Act of 1871Labor DisputesOverbreadth DoctrineState StatutesJudicial Immunity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Arzberger

The government moved to modify Jason Arzberger's bail conditions, seeking to add restrictions mandated by the Adam Walsh Amendments, including a curfew, electronic monitoring, a prohibition on witness contact, and a ban on firearm possession. Arzberger challenged these amendments as unconstitutional, arguing violations of Fifth Amendment due process, Eighth Amendment excessive bail, and the separation of powers doctrine. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied the government's motion, ruling that the automatic imposition of a curfew with electronic monitoring, firearm prohibition, and witness contact ban without individualized assessment violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court also indicated that the Excessive Bail Clause might be violated as applied to Arzberger, pending further hearing. The separation of powers argument was rejected. The denial was without prejudice, allowing the government to present an individualized justification for the conditions.

Bail ConditionsAdam Walsh AmendmentsChild PornographyDue ProcessFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentExcessive Bail ClauseSeparation of PowersSecond AmendmentFirst Amendment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2003

Gill v. Smith

The plaintiff filed a civil rights action against Defendant Gregory E. Smith, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and First/Eighth Amendment rights due to retaliation threats. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for the defendant on both claims. However, Chief Judge Scullin adopted the recommendation only in part, granting summary judgment for the defendant on the First Amendment retaliation claim, as the alleged threats did not deter the plaintiff. Crucially, the Chief Judge denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the Eighth Amendment ETS claim, finding material issues of fact concerning the level of ETS exposure and the defendant's deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's medical condition. The Chief Judge also denied the defendant's qualified immunity defense and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the Eighth Amendment claim to proceed.

Civil RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentEnvironmental Tobacco SmokeAsthmaPrison ConditionsFirst AmendmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentQualified Immunity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2003

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Horinko

This Amended Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case brought by various environmental and animal rights organizations against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Plaintiffs challenged EPA's voluntary High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, asserting violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), and sought injunctive relief. The court granted the EPA's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims alleging ultra vires action and FACA violations, finding that EPA did not exceed its authority or establish an advisory committee under FACA. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment concerning the TSCA claim were denied without prejudice due to insufficient factual record. Additionally, Plaintiffs' request for further discovery was denied, resulting in a decision that largely favored the defendant on the resolved claims.

Environmental LawToxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)Summary JudgmentAdministrative LawRegulatory ComplianceChemical TestingHigh Production Volume (HPV) ChemicalsAnimal RightsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)
References
21
Case No. 03-12-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2014

King Street Patriots, Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Engelbrecht and Diane Josephs v. Texas Democratic Party Gilberto Hinojosa, Successor to Boyd Richie, in His Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party And John Warren, in His Capacity as Democratic Nominee for Dallas County Clerk

This case involves an appeal of a trial court's summary judgment regarding the facial constitutionality of various Texas Election Code provisions. Appellants, King Street Patriots, Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Engelbrecht, and Diane Josephs, challenged provisions related to private rights of action, corporate political contributions, and definitions of political committees and contributions, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellees, the Texas Democratic Party and its chairmen and nominees, originally sued appellants for alleged Election Code violations concerning KSP's activities in the 2010 general election, including training poll watchers in coordination with the Texas Republican Party. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of most challenged provisions and declined jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, finding no reversible error and concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional.

Election LawCampaign FinanceConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFourth AmendmentOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineCorporate ContributionsPolitical Committees
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 9,339 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