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. docket no. 1339
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2017

Perez v. Abbott

This Amended Order addresses Plaintiffs' claims against Texas's 2011 congressional redistricting plan (Plan C185), focusing on Voting Rights Act (§ 2) and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The Court found that the configurations of districts CD23, CD27, and CD35 in South/West Texas were invalid due to intentional vote dilution and Shaw-type racial gerrymandering. In the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area, the Court also found intentional vote dilution through packing and cracking of minority voters, and a Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claim for CD26. However, claims for additional compact minority districts in DFW and Houston under § 2 results claims were denied, as were intentional vote dilution claims in the Houston area and claims from African-American Congresspersons. The decision highlights ongoing issues in balancing partisan redistricting with the protection of minority voting rights.

RedistrictingVoting Rights ActFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseVote DilutionRacial GerrymanderingShaw-type ClaimsIntentional DiscriminationCompactnessMinority Opportunity Districts
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southerland v. Woo

This case involves a father and his now-grown children suing Timothy Woo, a former caseworker for the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs alleged Woo made false statements or omitted information to obtain a Family Court order for entry into their home (Fourth Amendment), and then improperly removed the children without court approval (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments). After multiple appeals and a mistrial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on both claims. The court granted Woo qualified immunity for the Entry Order claim, finding his misstatements immaterial to probable cause. However, the court denied qualified immunity for the children's removal, concluding that no reasonable caseworker would have believed emergency circumstances warranted immediate seizure without a court order, especially given ACS policies and available alternatives. The court also rejected Woo's arguments for judicial estoppel and the application of *Cameron v. Fogarty*.

Civil RightsFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunityChild RemovalDue ProcessFamily Court ActJudicial EstoppelExigent CircumstancesChild Neglect
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Duffie v. Wichita County

Four Licensed Vocational Nurses (Duffie, Stoddard, Ware, Martinez) sued their employer, Correctional Healthcare Management, Inc. (CHM), Allison Smith, R.N., and Wichita County and its officers, alleging retaliation for reporting Smith's misconduct (an unlawful surgical procedure on an inmate) to the Texas Board of Nursing. Plaintiffs claimed discipline, termination, and malicious prosecution in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the Nurse Practice Act. The Court granted the motions to dismiss for Wichita County and the Officer Defendants, citing lack of an official policy/custom for the County and qualified immunity for the officers on First Amendment claims, and no protected liberty interest for Fourteenth Amendment claims. State law claims against the County and officers were dismissed due to sovereign immunity. Allison Smith's motion to dismiss was denied regarding Occupations Code violations, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and First Amendment \§1983 claims, but granted for Fourteenth Amendment \§1983 claims. CHM's motion to dismiss was denied, holding it vicariously liable for Smith's actions. The case will proceed against Smith and CHM for the remaining claims.

RetaliationPublic Employee SpeechFirst AmendmentDue ProcessQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessNurse Practice ActWhistleblower Protection
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Lowe

This habeas corpus proceeding addresses the First Amendment associational rights' privilege against disclosure of membership lists for dissident groups, applied to states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Michael Lowe, Grand Dragon of the Texas Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was held in contempt for refusing to produce the Klan's membership list during an investigation by the Texas Commission on Human Rights into housing discrimination in Vidor. The court found that the State failed to demonstrate a substantial relation between the requested information and a compelling state interest, as required by federal precedent. The State's various arguments, including a 'Ku Klux Klan' exception and waiver, were rejected. Consequently, the court granted Lowe's petition for writ of habeas corpus and ordered his discharge, emphasizing the protection of associational freedoms.

First AmendmentAssociational RightsHabeas CorpusKu Klux KlanMembership List DisclosureHousing DiscriminationContempt of CourtFreedom of AssociationFourteenth AmendmentCompelling State Interest
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Harris

Plaintiff Robert Jones, an incarcerated individual at Sing Sing, initiated this action alleging his cell was searched multiple times in retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights and in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with various property deprivations. Defendants, including correctional officers Harris and Allen, and Superintendent Marshall, moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and to state a claim. The court granted dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims related to cell searches and alleged sexual harassment, as well as First Amendment retaliation claims concerning cell searches, property destruction, and false misconduct reports, citing insufficient factual allegations or failure to meet constitutional thresholds. However, the court denied dismissal of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim regarding the deprivation of three specific items of property against defendants Allen and Marshall, requesting further legal briefing on questions concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies and access to post-deprivation procedures. Motions filed by the plaintiff for summary judgment and in limine were denied; the former as futile due to lack of exhaustion or constitutional violation, and the latter as premature.

Prisoner RightsFirst AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessRetaliationCell SearchProperty DeprivationQualified ImmunityAdministrative Remedies
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2016

Estate of M.D. ex rel. DeCosmo v. New York

Plaintiffs, Louis DeCosmo, as administrator of M.D.'s estate and father of J.D., sued various state and county defendants, along with individuals, alleging constitutional rights violations, negligence, assault and battery, wrongful death, and survival action under state law. The claims stemmed from the alleged failure of child protective services to intervene effectively, leading to M.D.'s death and J.D.'s injuries while in their mother's custody and her abusive partner's care. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for state defendants and failure to state a claim for Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, supervisory liability, and Monell liability for county defendants. The Court granted the State Defendants' motion based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, dismissing claims against New York State and OCFS. Claims against Dutchess DCFS and Ulster DSS were dismissed as they lack the capacity to be sued. The Court further dismissed Fourth Amendment claims due to a lack of alleged affirmative seizure by Dutchess Defendants and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims, finding no state-created danger or special relationship exception applied as M.D. and J.D. were not in state custody. Supervisory and Monell liability claims against county defendants also failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient factual allegations of unconstitutional policies or customs. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil RightsChild AbuseGovernmental ImmunityEleventh AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment Due ProcessState-Created DangerSpecial RelationshipMonell DoctrineSupervisory Liability
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balaber-Strauss v. Town/Village of Harrison

Plaintiffs, including Loronda and Vincent Murphy and a bankruptcy trustee, brought a § 1983 action against the Town/Village of Harrison and its officials, alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside a state defamation claim. They asserted that defendants retaliated against them and chilled their First Amendment rights through defamatory public comments regarding a tax foreclosure of the Murphys' home. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that defamation claims are insufficient for a § 1983 action and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an actual chilling effect on their speech. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed as inapplicable to state actors, and no Fourteenth Amendment violation was found. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

First AmendmentSection 1983DefamationMotion to DismissRetaliation ClaimChilling EffectSupplemental JurisdictionTax ForeclosureBankruptcy CodeDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puentes v. Sullivan

The plaintiff, a former jailer in the El Paso County Sheriff’s Department, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3), alleging that defendants conspired to terminate his employment due to his political beliefs, violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss the § 1985(3) claim and filed a Motion in Limine regarding the word "conspiracy," arguing the plaintiff failed to allege a class-based discriminatory animus as required by Griffin v. Breckenridge. The court reviewed circuit precedents, including Cameron v. Brock and Action v. Gannon, which held that political belief groups can constitute a class under § 1985(3) and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects First Amendment rights against private conspiracies under Section 5. The court concluded that a private conspiracy to deny First Amendment rights due to membership in a group advocating an unpopular position constitutes an invidiously discriminatory animus. Therefore, the court denied both of the defendants' motions.

First AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1985(3)ConspiracyPolitical BeliefsEmployment TerminationClass-based DiscriminationMotion to DismissMotion in Limine
References
31
Case No. SA-13-CV-524-DAE
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

Lloyd v. Birkman

Plaintiff Robert Lloyd sued Dan A. Gattis, Williamson County, and several commissioners after he was not selected for an interim county constable position. Lloyd alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Title VII, TCHRA, and Texas constitutional rights, stemming from interview questions about his views on abortion, same-sex marriage, political affiliation, and church attendance. The court adopted in part and vacated in part the Magistrate Judge's report, denying summary judgment on some of Lloyd's claims (Title VII, TCHRA, First Amendment retaliation based on church membership, Equal Protection) and granting summary judgment on others (Fourteenth Amendment privacy). The remaining claims will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentReligious DiscriminationPolitical AffiliationPrivacy RightsConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas LawCounty Constable
References
142
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2003

Brancato v. City of New York

Plaintiff Vincent Brancato sued the City of New York and several of its departments and officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Brancato claimed that the City failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before placing a lien on his Staten Island property for health code violations and associated cleanup costs. The court found that the initial notice of violation was sufficient for both the original and subsequent similar violations, citing the City's strong public health interest in summarily abating nuisances. Furthermore, the court noted that Brancato had post-deprivation remedies available through an Article 78 Proceeding. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the City's procedures for addressing health code violations provided constitutionally sufficient due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Property LienHealth Code ViolationPublic Nuisance AbatementCity of New YorkNotice RequirementPre-deprivation HearingPost-deprivation Remedy
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 4,584 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