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

Brewer v. United States

The plaintiff, Boyd Richard Brewer, Sr., a self-proclaimed tax protestor, initiated litigation against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to regain properties seized and sold due to his failure to file tax returns from 1980-1982 and 1984-1987. Rather than challenging his tax liability, Brewer focused on alleged procedural defects in the IRS's assessment and collection methods. The court denied Brewer's motion for a preliminary injunction, citing the Anti-Injunction Act and the availability of other legal remedies. Furthermore, the court largely granted the government's motions for summary judgment, dismissing most of Brewer's procedural challenges, including those related to notices, statute of limitations, and delegation of authority. However, the court reserved its decision on specific claims regarding the IRS's compliance with assessment procedures and the precise dates of title transfer for certain properties, ordering the government to provide further documentation.

Tax Protestor LitigationIRS Collection ProceduresAnti-Injunction ActQuiet Title ActionNotice of DeficiencyTax Assessment ValiditySummary Judgment StandardProcedural IrregularitiesStatute of Limitations (Tax)Paperwork Reduction Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Dillon

The debtor filed a motion for contempt against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), alleging a willful violation of the automatic stay by refusing to return funds levied from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) prior to the bankruptcy filing. The debtor also filed a turnover motion for these funds, which the court dismissed procedurally. The court first addressed sovereign immunity, concluding that while declaratory and injunctive relief might be available, it lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages against the IRS because the government had not filed a claim in the bankruptcy case. Furthermore, the court determined that the Tennessee exemption statute cited by the debtor did not apply to federal levies, meaning the IRA accounts were not exempt from the IRS's action. Consequently, even assuming a technical violation of the automatic stay, the debtor suffered no actual damages, and the motion for contempt was denied.

Automatic StaySovereign ImmunityBankruptcy CodeInternal Revenue ServiceIRA AccountsFederal LevyState Exemption LawMonetary DamagesContempt MotionTurnover Motion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Muset v. Ishimaru

Mihai Muset, a pro se plaintiff and former IRS senior attorney, brought an action against the EEOC and IRS Commissioners. His claims stemmed from a reprimand issued by an EEOC Administrative Judge, Susan Flynn, during a 2006 settlement conference, where Muset was accused of lacking settlement authority and engaging in inappropriate conduct. Muset alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Fifth Amendment due process, and Title VII. He also claimed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violation against the IRS for delayed document production. The court dismissed the APA claim, finding that the relevant section did not apply to attorney misconduct reprimands without a statutory hearing requirement. Muset's due process claim was dismissed because reputational harm alone does not trigger Fifth Amendment protections, and he received adequate notice. The Title VII claim was rejected as Muset was not an EEOC employee. The FOIA claim was moot for documents received and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for withheld documents due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, Muset's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against defense counsel was denied.

Attorney misconductEEOC sanctionsAdministrative Procedure ActDue process rightsFreedom of Information ActTitle VII claimRule 11 sanctionsSubject matter jurisdictionSummary judgment motionReputational harm
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. 13-18-00186-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

International Paper Company v. Signature Industrial Services, LLC and Jeffry M. Ogden

International Paper Company (IP) appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Signature Industrial Services, LLC (Signature) and Jeffry Ogden in a contract dispute over a slaker construction project. Signature alleged IP breached the contract by failing to pay invoices after verbally modifying Field Charge Order (FCO) submission procedures, leading to significant financial distress and a lost sale opportunity. Ogden claimed personal damages from IRS penalties and credit reputation harm. The appellate court affirmed Signature's breach of contract and associated actual damages but reversed fraud and promissory estoppel claims for Signature, and all claims for Ogden. It also reversed consequential damages related to the lost sale and IRS penalties for Signature, affirming only lost owners' equity.

Breach of ContractFraudPromissory EstoppelConsequential DamagesActual DamagesContract InterpretationIndemnificationExpert Witness TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 2-03-189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2004

Albertson's, Inc., a Certified Self-Insured v. Kathryn D. Ellis and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Albertson's, Inc., a self-insured employer, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which found a lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had concluded that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel had not rendered a final decision regarding Kathryn D. Ellis's maximum medical improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating (IR), thus preventing judicial review. Albertson's argued the appeals panel's 'affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part' decision constituted a final decision and that a plea to the jurisdiction, not a summary judgment, was the proper procedural vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TWCC appeals panel's decision was not final, effectively remanding the case for the appointment of a second designated doctor, and that a motion for summary judgment is an appropriate procedural vehicle to raise subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesFinal DecisionImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorTexas Labor Code
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeBlanc v. Shirey

The plaintiffs challenged a $500 penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for allegedly filing false W-4 forms, arguing it violated their Constitutional right to due process and sought to enjoin its collection. They contended the liability was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply. Presiding Judge Joe J. Fisher denied the injunctive relief, citing a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that considered such penalties as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. The court found no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs' claims of tax exemption and determined that the IRS procedures provided adequate due process, which the plaintiffs failed to properly utilize. Additionally, the court addressed and dismissed separate claims by some plaintiffs against private parties, deeming them frivolous and brought in bad faith. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the cases with prejudice, and ordered some plaintiffs to pay court costs and attorneys' fees.

Due ProcessTax PenaltyIRS ProceduresFalse Withholding InformationAnti-Injunction ActSummary JudgmentFrivolous LitigationJudicial SanctionsConstitutional RightsWage Garnishment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Phinney

This consolidated memorandum opinion addresses three cases seeking refunds of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleged the plaintiffs, who operate shrimp boats in Rockport, Texas, were employers of shrimp captains and deck hands. Plaintiffs argued these workers were independent contractors, not employees, under the common-law tests. The court reviewed factors such as the right to control, right of discharge, integration of work, profit/loss opportunities, permanency, and the parties' own views. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiffs were indeed employers and denied the tax refund claims.

FICA taxesFUTA taxesemployment taxtax refundemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractorcommon law testright to controlshrimp fishing industrymaritime law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,459 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