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

Mega Child Care, Inc. v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Justice Jennings dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that Mega Child Care, Inc. lacks a statutory right to judicial review of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' (TDPRS) decision to revoke its child-care license. The dissent highlights that the Human Resources Code no longer provides for judicial review in such cases, having been amended in 1997 to repeal relevant sections. It also states that the Administrative Code sections cited by Mega do not confer a right to judicial review, and one such section has been repealed. Furthermore, Justice Jennings clarifies that Government Code section 2001.171 is merely procedural and does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review without specific statutory authorization. Finally, the dissent concludes that Mega waived any constitutional right to judicial review by failing to raise it in the trial court. Therefore, Justice Jennings would affirm the district court's decision to grant TDPRS's plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss Mega's suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewChild Care LicenseLicense RevocationStatutory InterpretationGovernment CodeHuman Resources CodeTravis CountyDissenting OpinionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Case No. 9419-13267 / 01-A-01-9511-JV-00508
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1996

Michael Scott Evans v. Karen Marie Bisson Steeman - Dissenting

Michael Scott Evans seeks to establish paternity and legitimize Jacob Ryan Steelman, a child born to Karen Marie Bisson Steelman while she was married to another man. Despite initial acknowledgment, Ms. Steelman later returned to her husband, listing him as the father. Evans's petition for legitimation was dismissed without blood tests, based on a prior court's interpretation of Tennessee's legitimation statutes regarding children 'born in lawful wedlock.' This dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal is based on an erroneous and outdated judicial interpretation. The dissent contends that the statute should be reinterpreted in light of modern understanding of parental rights and reliable paternity testing, asserting that a biological father who takes prompt action should have standing to pursue legitimation.

PaternityLegitimationParental RightsMarital PresumptionStare DecisisStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessEqual ProtectionBiological FatherChild Support
References
102
Case No. 95-112-K277
Regular Panel Decision

Fain v. State

This document is a dissenting opinion concerning a murder conviction. The dissent argues that the trial court, the 277th Judicial District Court of Williamson County, acted unconstitutionally by conducting the trial in Smith County instead of its designated county seat in Williamson County. It posits that this action violated Article V, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution, rendering the proceedings void and the resulting judgment invalid. The opinion emphasizes that jurisdiction cannot be created or waived through agreement of the parties in such fundamental constitutional matters. Furthermore, the dissent contends that a harmless error analysis is not applicable to a judgment deemed void due to such a constitutional violation. The dissent incorporates a panel opinion from March 12, 1998, to support its arguments.

Constitutional LawJudicial ProcedureChange of VenueJurisdictionTexas Constitution Article V Section 7Criminal ProcedureVoid JudgmentHarmless Error AnalysisAppellate ProcedureDissenting Opinion
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Goudeau

Justice Green, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Johnson, dissents from the main opinion. The dissent argues that the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF & G), acting as both defendant and intervenor, should be bound by its admission that Louis Goudeau was an insured under its auto policy, regardless of the capacity in which the admission was made. USF & G had denied Goudeau's insured status as a defendant but admitted it as an intervenor in the same lawsuit. The dissenting justices contend that allowing USF & G to dispute this admission constitutes tactical gamesmanship and undermines the fairness of judicial procedures, particularly as the company never clarified a distinction between its roles. Therefore, the dissent asserts that the insurer's motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the judgment of the court of appeals, which reversed the summary judgment, should be affirmed.

Insurance PolicyUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentJudicial AdmissionsInterventionSubrogationParty IdentityDissenting OpinionTexas Civil Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Subway Surface Supervisors Ass'n v. New York City Transit Authority

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The dissent contends that Civil Service Law § 115, upon which the majority bases its order for a hearing, merely enunciates a policy and does not provide an enforceable statutory right or a cognizable claim for violation. The opinion highlights that all cited case law supports this interpretation and that the majority has failed to identify any precedent recognizing a cause of action under § 115. Furthermore, the dissent rejects the petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim regarding wages established through collective bargaining, asserting that unions cannot seek judicial intervention to impose wage scales not agreed upon during negotiations. The dissent maintains that collective bargaining agreements, even if they result in wage disparities, are generally upheld, provided they meet valid state objectives.

Civil Service LawEqual Pay for Equal WorkCollective BargainingDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationPolicy EnforcementJudicial ReviewEqual Protection ClauseWage DisparityEmployment Law
References
10
Case No. 05-20-00786-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Ahmed Zidan v. Alexander Zidan F/K/A Mohammed Zidan

This document is a dissenting opinion regarding a Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) motion to dismiss. Justice Goldstein dissents from the majority's conclusion, arguing that appellant Ahmed Zidan's communication to the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) should be considered absolutely privileged. The dissent contends that TREC is a quasi-judicial body, and therefore, communications made to it are entitled to absolute immunity, regardless of the actor's motivation. Consequently, Justice Goldstein believes Ahmed met his burden to establish an affirmative defense of absolute privilege, and the trial court's order denying his motion to dismiss should be reversed.

TexasCourt of AppealsDissenting OpinionTCPAAnti-SLAPPAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeQuasi-Judicial ProceedingTRECReal Estate Commission
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2004

Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez

Justice O’Neill dissents from the Court's application of the sophisticated-user doctrine, arguing it wrongly absolves Humble, a silica flint supplier, of its duty to warn. The dissent highlights that silica flint is dangerous, employees were unaware of hazards, employers neglected safety, and warnings were easy to provide and would have prevented injury to workers like Raymond Gomez. O'Neill asserts that the Court misinterpreted precedent and Restatement factors, establishing a dangerous precedent that undermines worker safety. The dissent critiques the Court for overlooking Humble's misleading information and the industry's inadequate appreciation of silica dangers, suggesting the ruling is an attempt to address mass-tort claims legislatively rather than judicially.

product liabilitysophisticated user doctrineduty to warnsilica dust exposuresilicosisworker safetymass tortsdissenting opinionTexas lawcausation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tzolis v. Wolff

The dissent argues that the majority overstepped its bounds by judicially creating a right for Limited Liability Company (LLC) members to bring derivative actions, a right that the New York Legislature explicitly considered and rejected during the enactment of the LLC Law in 1994. Justice Read highlights the legislative history, demonstrating that while the Assembly initially included derivative action provisions in proposed LLC bills, the Senate consistently omitted them, leading to a deliberate legislative compromise that excluded such rights from the final statute. The dissent criticizes the majority's justification based on existing common law and analogies to other business entities, asserting that there is no settled law regarding derivative suits for LLCs, which are a relatively new statutory form. Citing precedents, Justice Read emphasizes the Court's consistent deference to legislative intent, particularly when proposed statutory language is omitted. The dissenting opinion concludes that the majority has effectively rewritten the law, undermining legislative prerogative and providing a remedy unfettered by the safeguards typically imposed by the Legislature.

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)Derivative SuitsLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationJudicial ActivismAppellate ProcedureBusiness LawCorporate GovernancePartnership LawCommon Law Equity
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Children & Family Services & Lanterman

This dissenting opinion argues that respondent Lauren Lanterman is entitled to arbitrate her termination for failing to maintain teaching certification under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The dissent emphasizes the narrow public policy exception to arbitration and the inappropriateness of preemptive judicial intervention, contending that an arbitrator could fashion a remedy other than termination that would not violate public policy or state regulations. It disagrees with the majority's implicit conclusion that allowing an arbitrator to determine the remedy would improperly delegate authority from the State Education Department or OCFS. The dissenting judge asserts that the dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the CBA's disciplinary articles, unequivocally falls within the agreement's broad arbitration provisions. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court's determination to allow arbitration should be affirmed, as no constitutional, statutory, or public policy prohibition prevents it.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementTeacher CertificationPublic Policy ExceptionTermination of EmploymentDissenting OpinionArbitrabilityPublic Sector EmploymentState Education DepartmentOffice of Children and Family Services
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,062 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