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. 0283-00
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Luquis v. State

Appellant Edgar Luquis challenged a statutorily-required parole law instruction given during the punishment phase of his murder trial. He argued that the instruction was misleading because good conduct time does not affect his parole eligibility or mandatory supervision release. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the trial judge did not err by providing the legislatively-mandated instruction. The court found that the instruction, when viewed in its entirety, was not unconstitutional or misleading, especially considering its explicit directive to the jury not to apply the general concepts of good conduct time or parole to the appellant's specific circumstances. The court also emphasized the presumption of a statute's constitutionality and the lack of evidence that the jury was actually misled.

Criminal LawParole LawGood Conduct TimeDue ProcessDue Course of LawJury InstructionConstitutional LawMurderTexasAppellate Procedure
References
43
Case No. 06-17-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Jessica Growden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Good Shepherd Health System, the Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center

Jessica Growden sued Good Shepherd Medical Center as a class action after being charged an allegedly unreasonable amount for her daughter's emergency room visit. Growden, uninsured, sought a declaratory judgment that the hospital's contract only allowed billing for the reasonable value of services. Good Shepherd waived Growden's bill before class certification and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to mootness. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals applied the "picking-off exception" to the mootness doctrine, finding that Good Shepherd's waiver was a litigation strategy. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Growden's class-action claims and her individual claim for attorney fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act, remanding for further proceedings, while affirming the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Class ActionMootness DoctrinePicking-off ExceptionDeclaratory Judgment ActAttorney FeesSubject-Matter JurisdictionMedical Billing DisputeHospital Emergency ServicesContractual LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc.

Jonathan Tasini, a freelance writer, filed a complaint against The New York Times Company, challenging a "Release Agreement" offered to writers after a prior copyright infringement judgment (Tasini I). Tasini alleged the agreement, which required writers to waive claims to keep their articles in electronic databases, was unlawful and unenforceable, citing interference with copyright relief, unconscionability, duress, and breach of good faith. The New York Times moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, granted the dismissal, concluding that Tasini lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute largely involved state contract law. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Copyright LitigationArticle III StandingPrudential StandingFederal JurisdictionContract DisputeMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefFreelance JournalismElectronic DatabasesSouthern District of New York
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Scott

Dan Thomas, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his civil action against Wayne Scott, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. Thomas alleged he was unjustly denied 'good conduct time' due to his 'P.A.M.I.O. status,' claiming violations of his due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment under state and federal constitutions. The trial court deemed the suit frivolous. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that good time is a privilege, not a constitutional right, and that the denial of good time for serious offenders and those in the P.A.M.I.O. program serves a legitimate governmental interest and does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Prisoner rightsGood conduct timeDue processEqual protectionCruel and unusual punishmentFrivolous lawsuitIn forma pauperisAggressively Mentally Ill Offender (P.A.M.I.O.)Appellate reviewAbuse of discretion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GOOD SHEPHERD MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. State

Good Shepherd Medical Center challenged the constitutionality of two Texas statutes (2003 amendments) that mandated "any willing provider" status for general hospitals in specific geographic areas for TRS-Care and TRS-ActiveCare programs. Good Shepherd, which previously held a de facto sole-provider status in Longview, Gregg County, argued these amendments were unconstitutional local or special laws. The district court dismissed Good Shepherd's claims for lack of standing and also ruled on the merits, declaring the statutes constitutional. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the district court's finding that Good Shepherd lacked standing to bring its claims. Consequently, it vacated the district court's decision on the merits, stating that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate those issues. Good Shepherd's suit was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, and the intervenors' claims were also dismissed.

Standing DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActConstitutional LawLocal & Special LawsTexas Insurance CodeHealthcare Provider Networks"Any Willing Provider" StatutesTeacher Retirement SystemAppellate Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ6784503-M; ADJ7336025
Regular
Aug 24, 2012

WILLIAM AGUILAR vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

This case involves William Aguilar's claim for psychiatric injury against Time Warner Cable, stemming from two periods of employment. The Administrative Law Judge found Aguilar sustained industrial psychiatric injuries in both roles and ruled the defendant waived the "good faith personnel action" defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(h). While the majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defense was not raised properly and not proven even if considered, Commissioner Lowe dissented. Commissioner Lowe argued the defense was timely raised and that the employer's reassignment of territories constituted a good faith personnel action, thereby barring compensation.

Labor Code 3208.3(h)Good Faith Personnel ActionPsychiatric InjuryCumulative Industrial InjuryReconsiderationWCJ ReportDissenting OpinionObjective Good Faith StandardSubstantial CausePredominant Cause
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,985 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