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

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Mexico Academy and Central School

Plaintiffs Robert Kiesinger and Ronald Russell sued Mexico Academy and Central School and its officials, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of speech and free exercise, and the Establishment Clause, as well as the New York Constitution. The dispute arose after the school removed bricks with Christian inscriptions from a commemorative walkway, citing concerns about violating the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to compel the school to reinstate their bricks, arguing that the school engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by allowing other religious messages. The court determined that while plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of viewpoint discrimination, they failed to establish a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause defense raised by the defendants. The court highlighted that the bricks would be visible to all students throughout the school day, which could lead to a perception of governmental endorsement of religion. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechEstablishment ClauseViewpoint DiscriminationPreliminary InjunctionPublic ForumReligious SpeechSchool PropertyConstitutional LawEducation Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Coast Utilities Coalition v. Railroad Commission

The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that the Railroad Commission of Texas had the authority to adopt a gas utility rate schedule with a Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) clause. This COSA clause allows for automatic annual rate adjustments based on increases or decreases in the utility’s cost of service without requiring a new full rate case each year. The Court determined that the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (GURA) expressly grants the Commission authority to establish such "rates," including practices affecting compensation and charges. The Court also found that the COSA clause complies with GURA's mandates regarding procedural requirements and municipal jurisdiction, as the clause itself is established through a full rate case and municipalities retain review and challenge capabilities.

Gas Utility RegulationRate SchedulesCost of Service AdjustmentCOSA ClauseRegulatory AuthorityMunicipal JurisdictionGURAStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawRate Increase
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Firefighters' Ass'n, Local 624

The City of San Antonio appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the "evergreen clause" in its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 624 violates the Texas Constitution's debt limitations and public policy. The City argued the clause created unconstitutional debt and improperly restricted its governmental powers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the City failed to establish that the evergreen clause or the entire CBA was void or violated public policy. The court found that the evergreen clause merely extends the CBA's duration and that most pecuniary obligations, contingent on workforce size, do not constitute unconstitutional "debt." Furthermore, the court concluded that the CBA does not improperly cede or restrict the City's governmental or legislative powers, aligning with Chapter 174 of the Texas Local Government Code which authorizes such collective bargaining agreements.

Evergreen ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementDebt LimitationsTexas ConstitutionPublic PolicySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor RelationsFirefighters Union
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Rylander v. Bandag Licensing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General from a district court judgment that awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) recovery of franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. BLC, an Iowa corporation, held a certificate of authority to do business in Texas but had no physical presence or conducted intrastate business in the state, operating solely through interstate commerce. The Comptroller's assessment of franchise taxes, based solely on BLC's certificate of authority, was challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority did not establish a "substantial nexus" with Texas required by the Commerce Clause, nor did it satisfy the minimum contacts for the Due Process Clause. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to BLC, ruling that the amended Tax Code § 112.108, which prohibits such fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, was unconstitutional as an unreasonable financial barrier to court access.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseSubstantial NexusPhysical PresenceDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesGovernmental ImmunityTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,775 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