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

Empower Texans, Inc. v. Nodolf

Plaintiff Empower Texans, Inc., a non-profit corporation, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin several Texas District Attorneys and the Attorney General from investigating or prosecuting it under Texas Penal Code § 37.11. This fear arose after a Tarrant County voter complained about Plaintiff's use of the assumed name 'Texas Ethics Disclosure Board' in political notices. The court, treating the motion as a request for preliminary injunction, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an 'injury in fact' required for Article III standing. Specifically, the court found no credible threat of prosecution, as neither the statute clearly proscribed Plaintiff's conduct nor had any governmental entity taken action beyond reviewing a citizen's complaint. Consequently, the court denied Plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint.

First Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsSubject Matter JurisdictionArticle III StandingInjury in FactCredible Threat of ProsecutionPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderPolitical SpeechTexas Penal Code § 37.11
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2015

Evans, Ralph Kenneth

This document contains two criminal complaints filed by Ralph-Kenneth Evans. He alleges violations of his constitutional rights and various federal and state codes by officials in Grand Saline and Van Zandt County, Texas. Evans claims unlawful arrest for driving without a license, fraud, extortion, and deprivation of liberty, asserting that the legal system is operating unconstitutionally. The complaints also include a "Surrender of Social Security Card and Number" and a "Release of Power of Appointment," challenging government agencies' jurisdiction over him as a private state citizen. He references numerous legal codes and case precedents to support his claims of sovereign status and demands cessation of alleged trespasses.

Criminal ComplaintConstitutional RightsDue ProcessRight to TravelHabeas CorpusTaxationSocial SecuritySovereign CitizenJurisdictionFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Case No. 08-20-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2022

Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission

Appellants Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan appealed a trial court's summary judgment regarding their counterclaim against the Texas Ethics Commission. They sought a declaratory judgment that Texas Government Code sections 571.061, .172, and .173 violate the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause, contending the Commission is a legislative body improperly exercising executive powers. The trial court affirmed the constitutionality of the statutes, ruling the Commission is an executive agency with constitutionally granted legislative powers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that neither the placement of the Commission's enabling provision in Article III nor its hybrid appointment procedure conclusively establishes it as a legislative body. Consequently, the appellate court found no violation of the Separation of Powers Clause.

Separation of PowersTexas ConstitutionEthics CommissionGovernment CodeJudicial ReviewState AgenciesExecutive BranchLegislative BranchSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Showing 1-10 of 4,518 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