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

HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case involves HCA Healthcare Corporation and other hospitals (collectively, "the Hospitals") who filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Texas Department of Insurance, its Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), and Commissioner Albert Betts, Jr. The Hospitals sought to reverse 1,406 decisions issued by DWC and challenged the facial constitutionality of former Texas Labor Code § 413.031(k) for allegedly failing to provide a right to a contested case hearing in medical disputes. Texas Mutual Insurance Company also intervened. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the Hospitals and Texas Mutual on the right to a hearing but denied the Hospitals' request to set aside the 1,406 DWC orders. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Hospitals' request to set aside the DWC decisions, citing a lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeals. Furthermore, the court reversed the trial court's declaration that former § 413.031(k) was facially unconstitutional, rendering judgment that the statute is indeed facially constitutional.

Medical Dispute ResolutionWorkers' CompensationTexas Labor CodeFacial ConstitutionalityJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
16
Case No. E2006-02225-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2009

Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting

Justice Koch's dissenting opinion challenges the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision to invalidate the Unauthorized Substances Tax as facially unconstitutional. He argues the tax, aimed at merchants of illegal drugs, can be constitutionally applied to individuals possessing substantial quantities for resale, a fact supported by statutory inferences in criminal law. Koch contends that the court's broad invalidation (facial challenge) is excessive, as it prevents the tax from being applied in legitimate circumstances. He suggests an 'as-applied' challenge would be a more appropriate remedy for individuals who are not actual drug peddlers. Justice Koch emphasizes the legislature's right to tax illegal drug profits to offset the significant societal costs of the drug trade.

Taxation LawDrug TraffickingConstitutional LawFacial ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeLegislative PowerSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationIllegal Substances Tax
References
118
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

Steven Waters v. Reagan Farr, Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Tennessee

Justice William C. Koch, Jr. delivers a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion concerning the court's decision to invalidate Tennessee's Unauthorized Substances Tax as facially unconstitutional. He agrees with the court's conclusions that the tax does not violate double jeopardy, self-incrimination, or due process. However, he dissents from the decision that the tax cannot be constitutionally imposed on persons possessing significant quantities of illegal drugs for resale. Justice Koch argues that the court disregarded precedents favoring statutory constitutionality and failed to consider the rational connection between possessing substantial drug quantities and intent to sell, which is recognized in criminal law. He also points out procedural irregularities in the case, suggesting the Attorney General was not properly notified of the specific constitutional challenge.

Unauthorized Substances TaxFacial ConstitutionalityAs-Applied ChallengeTaxing PowerTennessee Constitution Article II Section 28Illegal Drug TradeDrug TraffickingStatutory InterpretationJudicial RestraintDue Process
References
113
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
Case No. 2022-07-0416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

Wigdor, Brad v. Electric Research & Manufacturing Cooperative, Inc.

The employee, Brad Wigdor, sustained a work-related knee injury and was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome. He challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law and disputed the degree of permanent medical impairment. The trial court awarded permanent disability benefits but declined to address the constitutional challenges. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, citing lack of authority to address facial challenges to the constitutionality of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Costs on appeal were taxed to the employee.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court AffirmationMedical ImpairmentComplex Regional Pain SyndromeFacial ChallengeAdministrative Tribunal AuthorityWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee Rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Lowenberg

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Jim Lowenberg and others against the City of Dallas. The plaintiffs challenged a 1994 Dallas City ordinance that required commercial building owners to obtain a registration certificate and pay a fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional occupational tax. The City rescinded the fee in 1995 but continued collection for the period it was active. After an initial federal lawsuit was dismissed, appellees refiled their claims in state court. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the appellees, awarding refunds and attorney's fees. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the appellees' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, classifying their challenge as a facial challenge to the ordinance, with the limitation period starting from the ordinance's passage in 1994.

Class ActionOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational TaxStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFacial ChallengeAs Applied ChallengeTexas LawMunicipal FeesProperty Owners
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harold Tolley v. Attorney General of Tennessee

Harold Tolley, an inmate serving a life sentence, filed a petition for Declaratory Judgment in the Davidson County Chancery Court, challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-35-501(i) as applied to life sentences with the possibility of parole. The Tennessee Department of Correction moved to dismiss, arguing Tolley failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not first seeking a Declaratory Order from the Department. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the petition. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Tolley's argument constituted an 'as applied challenge' rather than a 'facial challenge' to the statute. Therefore, the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) before seeking judicial relief was applicable, and Tolley's failure to do so justified the dismissal.

Declaratory JudgmentAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineConstitutional LawAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengeParole EligibilityLife SentenceInmate RightsStatutory Interpretation
References
34
Case No. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 5,311 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