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. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado

This interlocutory appeal concerned a media defendant's (Freedom Communications, Inc.) motion for summary judgment in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Coronado) alleged that Freedom published a political advertisement falsely accusing them of child abuse. The trial court judge, Abel Limas, denied Freedom's motion. Subsequently, Limas pleaded guilty to federal racketeering, admitting he accepted a bribe for his ruling in this case, making him constitutionally disqualified. Due to the judge's disqualification, his order was void, thus depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction to address the merits. The court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial DisqualificationJudicial CorruptionVoid OrderSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionBriberyRacketeeringDefamationInvasion of Privacy
References
22
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saraceno v. City of Utica

Plaintiff, a Data Processing Supervisor for the City of Utica Board of Water Supply, alleges she was removed from her provisional appointment and demoted due to political conspiracy and retaliation for complaints. She filed an amended complaint raising federal claims including deprivation of property interest, First Amendment free speech, freedom of association, and liberty interest stigmatization, alongside state law claims. The court dismissed all federal claims against the municipal defendants, and further dismissed the property interest, free speech, and liberty interest federal claims against individual defendants. Additionally, all state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and Civil Service Law violations were dismissed. Only the freedom of association claim against individual defendants remains for trial, as summary judgment was denied on this point due to triable issues of fact concerning whether political affiliation was the sole reason for her dismissal.

Civil Service LawProvisional AppointmentDemotionPolitical RetaliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationDue ProcessLiberty InterestSummary Judgment
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClernon v. Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael J. McClernon, Sr., a former President of the Beaver Dams Volunteer Fire Department, sued the Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his civil rights were violated when he was suspended and expelled. McClernon alleged retaliation for exercising his freedom of speech after writing a letter to the U.S. Fire Administration, complaining about unequal grant money distribution and alleging misuse of funds by other fire departments. The court found that while his speech touched on public concern, it had a damaging effect on inter-departmental relations and caused disruption within the Beaver Dams Department. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding that the department was justified in expelling McClernon due to the detrimental impact of his speech.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechRetaliationPublic EmployeeVolunteer Fire DepartmentSummary JudgmentPublic ConcernInter-organizational CooperationWorkplace Disruption
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berrios v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

Plaintiffs Miguel Berrios, Ann Berrios, and Kimberly A. Conlon initiated a civil rights action against the State University of New York at Stony Brook and several individual faculty members, alleging violations of their First Amendment and Due Process rights. The claims stem from alleged retaliation after Dr. Berrios uncovered scientific data falsification in 1995. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on several grounds, including res judicata and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part, dismissing certain claims such as those predating Dr. Berrios's prior settlement, Conlon's freedom of association claim, and all Due Process claims. However, other First Amendment claims, including free speech for Dr. Berrios and Conlon, and freedom of association for Ann Berrios, were permitted to proceed to discovery.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationDue ProcessRetaliationRes JudicataEleventh Amendment ImmunityMotion to DismissPublic Employees
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. City of Dallas

This case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Dallas against A.E. Brewster et al., challenging the City's Sign Ordinance. Brewster contended the Ordinance was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically violating freedom of speech and depriving property without due process. The court applied a standard for summary judgment and a more intense scrutiny for regulations affecting protected speech, while applying rational basis for due process. The court found that the Ordinance directly advances substantial government interests in communications efficiency, safety, and aesthetics, and is not overbroad. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Ordinance's amortization period and landmark designation process do not deny due process or equal protection. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, denying Brewster's claims for injunctive and other relief, finding the Ordinance constitutionally valid.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionCommercial SpeechSummary JudgmentCity OrdinanceZoning RegulationsAmortization PeriodSign Control
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commer v. Keller

Plaintiff Roy Commer, president of Civil Services Technical Guild, Local 375, sued union officers (defendants) after being suspended from his position, alleging violations of federal labor laws. Commer's motion for a preliminary injunction became moot upon his reinstatement, but he filed an amended complaint seeking monetary damages. The defendants filed counterclaims alleging Commer abused his power, suppressed dissent, misused union funds, and bypassed policy-making bodies, thus infringing on their rights to freedom of speech and association under the LMRDA. The court granted Commer's motion to dismiss all four counterclaims, finding that the defendants' allegations, which primarily involved critical speech, misuse of funds, and failure to call meetings, did not constitute a direct infringement of membership rights or a real threat to union democracy as required by LMRDA Section 101(a)(2). The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants, concluding that their counterclaims were not frivolous.

Union DemocracyLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Freedom of SpeechFreedom of AssemblyInternal Union AffairsMotion to DismissCounterclaimsUnion OfficersDisciplinary ActionMembership Rights
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Harleston

This case addresses the constitutional protection afforded to Professor Jeffries' July 20, 1991 speech. Both parties agreed the speech, in its entirety, touched upon matters of public concern. However, the Attorney General argued that specific sections of the speech, deemed offensive, should not be constitutionally protected. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that a speech must be considered in its full context for constitutional protection, citing precedents like Rankin v. McPherson. Consequently, the Court ruled that Professor Jeffries' entire speech is constitutionally protected. Additionally, the Court permitted the admission of evidence regarding the sections of the speech that motivated the defendants' actions, though it explicitly stated that such motivation would not serve as a defense against civil allegations.

Constitutional LawFreedom of SpeechPublic ConcernFirst AmendmentEmployee SpeechContextual AnalysisJudicial OrderCivil RightsEvidence AdmissibilityLegal Precedent
References
8
Case No. No. 09 Civ. 10155
Regular Panel Decision

Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC

Plaintiffs, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen, initiated a copyright infringement action in 2009 against several electronics distributors, including Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (WDE), for their use of the BusyBox software. In 2010, the court issued a default judgment and a permanent injunction against WDE. The current motion by plaintiffs seeks to hold Westinghouse Digital LLC (WD), a non-party, in contempt of this earlier injunction. The court determined that WD is a successor in interest to WDE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) due to substantial continuity of identity, and is therefore bound by the injunction. WD's defenses, including a prior FCC order and fair use, were rejected by the court. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to hold WD in contempt, deferring the decision on specific damages and attorneys' fees pending further submissions from the parties.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtInjunctionSuccessor LiabilityRule 65(d)Fair Use DoctrineBusyBox SoftwareOpen SourceDefault JudgmentFCC Order
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 346 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