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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 08-20-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2022

Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission

Appellants Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan appealed a trial court's summary judgment regarding their counterclaim against the Texas Ethics Commission. They sought a declaratory judgment that Texas Government Code sections 571.061, .172, and .173 violate the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause, contending the Commission is a legislative body improperly exercising executive powers. The trial court affirmed the constitutionality of the statutes, ruling the Commission is an executive agency with constitutionally granted legislative powers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that neither the placement of the Commission's enabling provision in Article III nor its hybrid appointment procedure conclusively establishes it as a legislative body. Consequently, the appellate court found no violation of the Separation of Powers Clause.

Separation of PowersTexas ConstitutionEthics CommissionGovernment CodeJudicial ReviewState AgenciesExecutive BranchLegislative BranchSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Insurance Co. v. Crain

Hartford Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel decision concerning the medical necessity of spinal surgery for Crain. The central legal question involved the applicable deadline for filing a petition for judicial review: either the 40-day period under Texas Labor Code Section 410.252 or the 30-day period under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Section 2001.176. The trial court had granted Crain’s plea to the jurisdiction, ruling Hartford's appeal untimely based on the APA's 30-day deadline. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the more specific 40-day deadline provided in Labor Code Section 410.252 applies to all appeals-panel decisions, including those regarding medical necessity disputes, thus controlling over the APA's general provisions. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Review ProcessStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureFiling DeadlinesTexas Labor CodeAdministrative Procedure ActMedical NecessitySpinal Surgery DisputesSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Holder

Plaintiff David Rivera, a correctional officer, initiated a Title VII retaliation lawsuit against Defendant Eric H. Holder, Jr., alleging adverse actions after he assisted a co-worker with an EEOC complaint. Rivera's claims included an unfair performance review and unjustified Absent Without Leave (AWOL) status. Crucially, after filing his own EEOC complaint, Rivera subsequently filed for bankruptcy but failed to disclose this pending administrative proceeding in his bankruptcy petition. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel. The Court found Rivera's omission was not inadvertent, as he had knowledge of the claim and a motive to conceal it from creditors. Consequently, the Court granted the Defendant's motion, dismissing Rivera's complaint with prejudice based on judicial estoppel.

Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentBankruptcyEEOC ClaimTitle VIIRetaliationFederal Bureau of PrisonsUndisclosed AssetsPrior Inconsistent PositionFifth Circuit
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,832 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