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. C.A. No. H-78-1831 (Consolidated Multidistrict Litigation)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1980

In Re Alien Children Education Litigation

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Ann. tit. 2, § 21.031, which prohibited the use of state funds to educate undocumented children and allowed local school districts to exclude them or charge tuition. Plaintiffs, undocumented school-age children, argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by federal law, and conflicted with international law. Judge SEALS of the Southern District of Texas found the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that access to education is a fundamental right, and the statute imposed an absolute deprivation of this right on undocumented children, who are "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state. The state's arguments regarding fiscal integrity and deterrence of immigration were found not to be compelling governmental interests. The court issued a permanent injunction against the Commissioner of Education, preventing the implementation of the challenged sections of the Texas Education Code.

Undocumented ChildrenPublic Education AccessEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentState Statute UnconstitutionalityImmigration Status DiscriminationFundamental Rights (Education)Judicial ScrutinyFiscal Policy (State)Class Action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce two subpoenas against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., stemming from race and/or sex discrimination charges filed by four African-American women employees. Morgan Stanley contested enforcement, arguing against sharing information with charging parties due to a potential settlement and an existing protective order from a previous case (Schieffelin litigation), and claiming the subpoenas were irrelevant, vague, or burdensome. The Court largely sided with the EEOC, affirming its independent investigative powers despite individual settlements and upholding the right to share information with charging parties as per Supreme Court precedent. The subpoenas were enforced, but with modifications that limited the scope of requested 'informal complaints' and upheld the protective order from the prior Schieffelin case for any overlapping documents.

Employment DiscriminationSubpoena EnforcementEEOC InvestigationConfidentiality OrderCollateral EstoppelCharging Parties RightsTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSettlement ImpactRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
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
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 03-22-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2023

Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

Jonathan Timothy Noyes appeals a lifetime protective order issued against him for the protection of his ex-girlfriend, Samantha Jo Voges. Noyes challenged the order on five grounds, asserting the district court failed to make required fact findings, that the evidence was insufficient, that his communication was constitutionally protected speech, that the underlying harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague, and that the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence. The State filed an application for a protective order after Voges reported thousands of threatening text messages, calls from blocked and spoofed numbers, and social media harassment from Noyes following their breakup. Voges testified about Noyes's controlling behavior, physical altercations, and fear for her safety due to threats to ruin her life, disclose private information, and access her accounts. A detective's investigation confirmed Noyes sent over 1,500 messages, used multiple numbers and emails, installed a tracking device on Voges's car, and attempted to access her bank account, leading to his arrest for stalking. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Voges was a victim of stalking, thus upholding the protective order.

StalkingProtective OrderHarassmentElectronic CommunicationDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFirearm Prohibition
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,962 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