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

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
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. 909 S.W.2d 874
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1995

Rogers v. Bradley

This legal opinion concerns a motion to recuse several Texas Supreme Court justices due to concerns about their impartiality. The allegations stem from a 1992 political action committee (TEX-PAC) video, 'Court Wars III,' which supported certain judicial candidates and linked their election to the outcome of a medical malpractice case involving Dr. Brian Bernard Bradley. Justice Gammage recused himself, arguing that the video created a reasonable question of impartiality. However, Justice Enoch, writing the response, disagreed with Gammage's reasoning, asserting that aggressive campaigning by third parties, without questionable conduct by the judges themselves, does not warrant recusal. The court ultimately denied the motion to recuse the other four justices.

Judicial RecusalJudicial ImpartialityPolitical Action CommitteesJudicial ElectionsCampaign FinanceMedical MalpracticeTexas Supreme CourtAppearance of BiasEthical ConductJudicial Ethics
References
55
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. 2014-CI-16674
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

in Re Allen J. Jones

The plaintiff, Cearth Faire, filed a reply to the defendants' response regarding her motion to compel the deposition of defendant Allen J. Jones. Faire argues that Jones has a history of legal misconduct, including judicially admitted human trafficking and holding his infant son hostage, which indicates he will not appear for a deposition without a court order. She asserts she has shown due diligence in attempting to depose Jones and refutes the defendants' allegations that her motion is merely an attack on Jones' character. Faire requests the court to deny the defendants' request for attorney fees and grant her motion to compel Jones' deposition, which is noticed for October 27, 2015.

human traffickingdepositionmotion to compeldiscovery disputelegal misconductsexual harassmentcivil procedureTexas lawattorney feesdue diligence
References
29
Case No. 04-15-00287-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2015

Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals

This document is Rebecca Ross's response to Cecil and Maxine Adams's emergency motion for review of orders. Ross argues that the 269th Judicial District Court in Harris County had jurisdiction to enforce a previous mandate from the First Court of Appeal and to settle outstanding judgments. She asserts that the transfer of the case between district courts in Harris County was valid and that the orders issued by the 269th District Court are legitimate. Ross also defends the denial of summary judgment against her, stating she seeks a dollar-for-dollar credit from her deposit in an Interpleader Case towards a judgment in the Adams Tenancy Case. Ultimately, Ross requests the Court of Appeals to deny the Adams's emergency motion for review.

AppealJurisdictionMandate EnforcementInterlocutory AppealQuasi-judicial ImmunitySummary JudgmentMotion for ReviewAppellate ProcedureTrial Court AuthorityCase Transfer
References
6
Case No. CA 15-01862
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

WELLSVILLE CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed a lower court's judgment denying a petition from Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Development, Inc. The petitioner sought to annul a negative declaration issued by the Town Board of Wellsville regarding a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter, citing violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found that the Town Board failed to conduct a "hard look" review concerning the project's impact on wildlife, the community character of the Village of Wellsville, and surface water, particularly in relation to an adjacent golf course reconstruction. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and the petition was granted.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactNegative DeclarationHard Look ReviewWildlife ConservationCommunity PlanningSurface Water ProtectionLand UseAppellate ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 3,174 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