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. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Raul Garcia v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

This disciplinary action was initiated by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against attorney Raul Garcia for alleged violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court found Garcia in violation of rules concerning fee-splitting with a non-lawyer, assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, and practicing under a trade name, while ruling in his favor on a charge of forming a partnership with a non-lawyer. Garcia appealed the district court's partial summary judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Garcia indeed violated rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) as an employee of a non-profit organization providing legal services.

Legal EthicsAttorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingTrade NameProfessional MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp.

This case addresses whether "cold-shoulder treatment" based on race or gender can constitute unlawful harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, and the doctrine of constructive discharge. Plaintiff Brenda Campbell sued Florida Steel Corporation for sexual and racial harassment, which the employer initially remedied. Campbell then alleged "cold-shoulder treatment" and constructive discharge, a claim upheld by the trial court but reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that while non-explicit conduct can be discriminatory, Florida Steel took reasonable remedial action given Campbell's failure to identify the perpetrators. The Court further clarified that for constructive discharge, conditions must be so intolerable that a reasonable person would resign, and found the evidence did not support Campbell's claim.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeRacial HarassmentSexual HarassmentEmployer LiabilityRemedial ActionCold-Shoulder TreatmentTitle VIITennessee Human Rights Act
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Izen v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

The case concerns attorney Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s challenge to disciplinary actions taken by the State Bar of Texas. He was disciplined by the Advertising Review Committee and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline for alleged violations of professional conduct rules related to lawyer advertising. Izen contended that these entities violated his fundamental constitutional right to due process by failing to adhere to their own procedures, expanding their investigation without notice, and initiating disciplinary proceedings without allowing him an opportunity to rectify perceived issues, despite accepting his fees. The dissenting justice concurred, arguing that the application of former Rule 7.07 was unconstitutional, as it deprived Izen of fair notice and a chance to cure violations. Consequently, the dissenting justice advocated for vacating the district court's judgment, which had favored the Commission, and dismissing all proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionState Bar of TexasProfessional Conduct RulesSafe HarborProcedural Due Process
References
18
Case No. 03-15-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

Herbert Rolnick v. Sight's My Line, Inc., a Florida Corporation Stewart Lantz Riggs, Aleshire & Ray Blazier, Christensen, Bigelow & Vir, P.C. And Adams & Graham

This document is an appellant's reply brief in an interlocutory appeal from a Texas judicial district court. The appellant, Herbert Rolnick, challenges the trial court's denial of his special appearance, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Texas. Rolnick asserts that his contacts were made solely in a representative capacity for his Florida-based client and that the appellees' 'minimum contacts' analysis is flawed, relying on superseded legal principles and misattributing actions. He emphasizes that his legal services were performed in Florida and did not constitute purposeful availment of Texas laws. The brief also addresses and refutes arguments regarding waiver and agency theory put forth by the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTexas Long-Arm StatuteWalden v. FioreChoice of LawAgency TheoryLegal Malpractice
References
26
Case No. 03-96-00151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Pedro Antonio Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment that suspended his authority to practice law for eighteen months. The suspension followed a jury's finding that Diaz violated three disciplinary rules: making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, commingling lawyer and client funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Diaz challenged the submission of additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the district court proceedings were original and independent, allowing for the assertion of additional claims. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the false statements made in an affidavit and rejected arguments concerning materiality and Diaz's role as a party.

lawyer disciplineprofessional misconductfalse statementscommingling fundsattorney suspensionappellate reviewTexas lawlegal ethicssummary judgmentequitable lien
References
3
Case No. 05-14-00832-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Culinaire of Florida, Inc. v. FelCor/CSS Holdings, LP

Culinaire of Florida, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial after a default judgment was granted in favor of FelCor/CSS Holdings, LP. Culinaire argued that its failure to appear was not intentional, but rather a result of an accidental communication breakdown, that it possessed a meritorious defense concerning the interpretation of an indemnification agreement, and that a new trial would not cause undue prejudice. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas, applied the three-element Craddock test. The court concluded that Culinaire satisfied all three elements, determining that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestIndemnification AgreementContract InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of AppealsAppellate ProcedureCommunication BreakdownMeritorious Defense
References
20
Case No. 01-07-01114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2010

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr. v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Justice Keyes dissents from the majority's decision, asserting that the State Bar of Texas and its Commission for Lawyer Discipline violated appellant Joe Alfred Izen Jr.'s fundamental constitutional due process rights. Izen was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and a license suspension after the Advertising Review Committee broadened its investigation into his advertising practices sua sponte, despite an initial offer for administrative resolution. The dissent argues that the Committee failed to provide proper notice and opportunity to cure alleged violations, contrary to its own rules and the "safe harbor" provision of former Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 7.07. Justice Keyes concludes that Rule 7.07, as applied in this case, is unconstitutional under both federal and Texas constitutions. Consequently, she would vacate the district court's judgment and dismiss the proceedings against Izen.

Due ProcessAttorney DisciplineLawyer AdvertisingConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative LawTexas State BarProfessional ConductSafe Harbor
References
20
Case No. 10-18-00383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2020

Florida Metal Products, Inc. and FLAMCO of Texas, Inc. v. Danny Kreder

Danny Kreder sued Florida Metal Products, Inc. and FLAMCO of Texas, Inc. for workers' compensation retaliation after he was terminated following a work injury and subsequent workers' compensation claim. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed the TCPA motion de novo. The court found that Kreder's claims were based on the appellants' exercise of free speech concerning workplace safety and economic health, thus meeting the first step of the TCPA analysis. However, the court concluded that Kreder failed to provide clear and specific evidence to establish a causal link between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, specifically regarding Marecle's knowledge of the claim, expression of negative attitude, failure to adhere to company policies, discriminatory treatment, or the falsity of the stated reason for discharge. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion to dismiss.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationTexas Citizens Participation ActMotion to DismissEmployment TerminationCausal LinkWorkplace SafetyEconomic ConcernsPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swindell v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

Plaintiff Edward LeRoy Swindell, a New York resident, sued Florida East Coast Railway for personal injuries due to asbestos exposure while working for the defendant in Florida between 1939 and 1952. The defendant, a Florida corporation with its headquarters in St. Augustine, Florida, moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction in New York. The court examined New York Civil Practice Law §§ 301 and 302, concluding that the defendant's contacts with New York did not constitute "doing business" or "transacting business" sufficiently related to the cause of action. The court also rejected the argument that the injury occurred in New York because emotional distress manifested there. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate forum.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLong-Arm StatuteNew York Civil Practice LawCPLR 301CPLR 302Doing BusinessTransacting BusinessTortious ActDue Process
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eakin v. Acosta

Appellant John J. Eakin, a Texas resident, filed a legal malpractice lawsuit in Texas against appellee Howard Acosta, a Florida lawyer. The suit stemmed from Acosta's representation of Eakin in a Florida personal injury case. Eakin argued that Acosta established personal jurisdiction in Texas through long-distance calls, forwarding a contract to Texas, and engaging Texas-licensed lawyers in a subservient role. The trial court granted Acosta's special appearance, concluding he lacked sufficient contacts with Texas. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Acosta's single prior representation in a Texas federal court and telephone communications were insufficient to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessLong-Arm StatuteLegal MalpracticeFlorida AttorneyTexas Civil ProcedureInterstate JurisdictionPurposeful Availment
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 317 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