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

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. 96-CV-3879, 96-CV-6310
Regular Panel Decision

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

Plaintiff Anita Schuloff filed two separate lawsuits against Queens College Foundation, Inc. and Brooklyn College Foundation, Inc., which were consolidated due to identical legal issues. Schuloff alleged violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6104 for the defendants' failure to promptly provide federal tax returns for public inspection, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Freedom of Information Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that 26 U.S.C. § 6104 does not create a private cause of action, thus precluding the related § 1983 claims. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing both complaints in their entirety.

Private Cause of ActionTax-Exempt Organizations26 U.S.C. § 610442 U.S.C. § 1983Rule 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistorySupplemental Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MARY E. BIVINS FOUNDATION, Appellant v. HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P., James Dondero, and Mark Okada, Appellees

Mary E. Bivins Foundation (appellant) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Highland Capital Management L.P. (HCM) and its officers, James Dondero and Mark Okada (appellees). The Foundation's claims stemmed from alleged mismanagement of its investment funds in the Highland Credit Strategies Fund Ltd. The trial court granted summary judgment on claims of negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, primarily finding that HCM and its officers did not owe a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the individual investors like the Foundation, and that the Foundation failed to present sufficient evidence for its other claims.

Summary JudgmentInvestment Fund MismanagementNegligence ClaimGross Negligence ClaimUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedCivil ConspiracyBreach of Fiduciary DutyTexas Theft Liability ActDuty of Care
References
31
Case No. 13-00-335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

the Ed Rachal Foundation and Paul D. Altheide, Individually v. Claude v. D'Unger

This employment case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Claude D'Unger against his former employer, The Ed Rachal Foundation, and its CEO, Paul Altheide. D'Unger's claims included breach of contract, wrongful termination, and tortious interference. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment regarding D'Unger's wrongful termination claim against the Foundation, finding sufficient evidence that he was discharged for refusing to perform an illegal act. However, the court reversed the breach-of-contract claim and the award of attorney's fees in favor of the Foundation. The tortious interference claim against Altheide was also reversed and rendered in his favor.

Employment LawWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceAt-Will EmploymentAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAttorney FeesCorporate Governance
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen

Justice Hecht concurs in part and dissents in part from the Court's judgment, finding the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation Act unconstitutional due to an unprecedented delegation of legislative power to a private, largely unelected, and unsupervised nonprofit corporation. He argues that the Foundation wields excessive authority, including the power to impose and enforce assessments and destroy crops, without adequate guidelines or public oversight. The opinion asserts that the Act also violates procedural due process by not providing sufficient opportunity for protest or hearing before enforcement actions, such as crop destruction. Additionally, Justice Hecht agrees that the assessments under the Act constitute an unconstitutional occupation tax on cotton growers. He highlights the Foundation's unique and anomalous structure within Texas government compared to similar programs in other states, reinforcing the clear unconstitutionality of the delegation.

Constitutional LawDelegation of Legislative PowerPrivate EntitiesBoll Weevil EradicationTexas ConstitutionDue ProcessRegulatory FeesOccupation TaxAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

The Lower Laguna Madre Foundation and Walter Kittelberger appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and Loma Alta Trust. The appeal addressed four issues: whether a section of the Texas Administrative Code created an exemption for shrimp research facilities, if the Commission violated the Texas Water Code regarding exemption conditions, whether the rule's adoption order contained a reasoned justification under the Administrative Procedure Act, and if the failure to provide for an appeal in the exemption rule prejudiced the Foundation's rights. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the exemption valid, the Commission's actions compliant with the Water Code, the justification sufficient, and no prejudice to the Foundation's rights.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawAquaculture RegulationShrimp Research FacilitiesSummary Judgment AppealStatutory ConstructionRule-Making AuthorityReasoned JustificationAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Texas Water Code
References
14
Case No. 03-98-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1999

Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Inc. and Walter A. Kittelberger v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and the Loma Alta Trust

The case involves an appeal by the Lower Laguna Madre Foundation and Walter Kittelberger against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and The Loma Alta Trust. The appellants challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment which affirmed the Commission's decision to exempt Loma Alta's shrimp research facility from certain wastewater discharge permits under Texas Administrative Code § 321.272(b)(3). The Foundation raised four issues, including whether the rule creates an exemption, whether the Commission violated the Texas Water Code by failing to set conditions for the exempted facility, whether the adoption order had a reasoned justification under the APA, and whether the lack of an appeal provision in the exemption rule prejudiced their rights. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the rule creates a valid exemption, the Commission established sufficient conditions, the order substantially complied with the reasoned justification requirement, and the Foundation's rights were not prejudiced despite the rule's appeal omission because they received a review.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawSummary JudgmentRule InterpretationStatutory ConstructionTexas Water CodeTexas Administrative Procedure ActShrimp AquacultureResearch FacilitiesWastewater Discharge
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foundation v. City of Fort Worth

The National Foundation challenged Chapter 32 of the City of Fort Worth's Code, which regulates charitable solicitations. The plaintiff alleged the ordinance, particularly its 20% limit on fundraising costs and exemptions for certain organizations, violated its constitutional rights including free speech, due process, and equal protection. The City had denied The National Foundation a permit because its solicitation expenses exceeded the prescribed 20% limit. The court sided with the City, ruling that the ordinance's standards were reasonable and constitutional, and that the classification exemptions were not discriminatory. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was overruled, and the defendant's motion was granted, denying the requested relief.

Charitable SolicitationsConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionPolice PowerSummary JudgmentOrdinance ChallengeMunicipal Regulation
References
36
Case No. 03-14-00419-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2015

Marshall Jackson, Jr. v. Denny Morrison, Janice Robinson, Gateway Foundation, Inc., Jesus Sanchez, Robert Auert, Patrick Lowe, and Anita Bjornaas

Marshall Jackson, Jr., an inmate, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Denny Morrison, Janice Robinson, Gateway Foundation, Inc., Jesus Sanchez, Robert Auert, Patrick Lowe, and Anita Bjornaas. Jackson, previously at the Kyle Correctional Center, was disciplined and discharged from a drug treatment program operated by Gateway Foundation, Inc., for refusing to participate in activities. He filed a pro se petition alleging negligence and gross negligence against the defendants, claiming improper treatment and denial of legal counsel during a disciplinary hearing. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Jackson's unanswered requests for admissions were deemed admitted, thereby negating essential elements of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding Jackson waived issues by not addressing the traditional motion for summary judgment in his brief, and that the deemed admissions conclusively negated his claims.

summary judgmentinmate litigationnegligence claimgross negligencedisciplinary hearingrequests for admissionpro se litigantappellate procedurewaiver of issuescausation element
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08768 [167 AD3d 1437]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2018

Allington v. Templeton Found.

Jeffrey E. Allington sustained injuries when a defective ladder "kicked out" at a work site, leading to a lawsuit against Templeton Foundation (Bassett) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Bassett initiated a third-party action against Pulver Roofing Co., Inc. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Allington partial summary judgment on liability against Bassett for Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) (based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 [b] [3] [iv]). However, Allington's Labor Law § 200 cause of action and most other § 241 (6) claims against Bassett were dismissed. Furthermore, the court dismissed Allington's common-law negligence claim and common-law indemnification claims against Pulver, while granting Bassett summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Pulver.

Labor LawConstruction site injuryLadder collapseSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationAppellate reviewWorkplace safety regulations12 NYCRR 23-1.21Third-party liability
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,523 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