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. 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

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. 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. 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. 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. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc.

This action involves a plaintiff who sued Buffalo State College Foundation, d/b/a Families United, for employment discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant withdrew a job offer because of her association with her disabled child, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of discriminatory intent, partially relying on the "same hirer, same firer" inference. However, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's stated reason for withdrawing the offer was a pretext for discrimination. The court emphasized the early stage of the employment relationship and the unique circumstances of association discrimination claims under the ADA.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Association DiscriminationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext for DiscriminationDisabled ChildFamily ResponsibilitiesHiring PracticesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
23
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,003 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