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. 03-04-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2005

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. The new interpretation allowed insurers to include only 15% of the premium tax paid, instead of 100%, in determining their financial burden for retaliatory tax purposes, arguing that title agents bore the remaining 85%. The companies claimed this interpretation was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to significantly higher taxes for foreign insurers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the Comptroller's interpretation reasonable, consistent with the statutes, and constitutional, as it served the legitimate governmental purpose of deterring other states from imposing excessive taxes on Texas-based insurers.

Retaliatory TaxTitle InsurancePremium TaxInsurance LawTax LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionAdministrative Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 01-18-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Shakeel Uddin v. Jacqueline K. Cunningham Deputy Receiver of Southern Title Insurance Corporation and Southern Title Insurance Corporation

Appellant Shakeel Uddin appealed a summary judgment granted to Southern Title Insurance Corporation (STIC). Uddin had guaranteed a loan to Nabeel & Amaan Investments, Inc. (NAI), which defaulted, leading to a claim by the lender, Sterling Bank, under a title insurance policy issued by STIC. After paying Sterling and being assigned the loan rights, STIC sued Uddin directly on the guaranty. Uddin argued that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that he had raised material issues of fact on his affirmative defenses. The First District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of limitations was not jurisdictional, STIC's capacity issue was cured by the relation-back doctrine, STIC established its claim, and Uddin had contractually waived his other affirmative defenses.

Guaranty AgreementLoan DefaultTitle InsuranceSubrogationStatute of LimitationsStandingCapacityRelation-Back DoctrineContractual WaiverAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anson v. National Maritime Union of America

Plaintiffs, a union member and a committee of union office candidates, sought to prevent incumbent union officers from enacting constitutional amendments and to enjoin the 1984 union convention. Defendants, the National Maritime Union and its officers, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over claims related to the 1983 election due to an ongoing Department of Labor investigation and the exclusive remedy provided by Title IV of the LMRDA. Furthermore, the court found it could not enjoin the 1984 convention as it had already commenced. The court concluded that all of plaintiffs' claims, though framed under Title I of the LMRDA, were in substance challenges to election processes governed exclusively by Title IV, thus requiring administrative remedies with the Secretary of Labor. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsLMRDA Title IVSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissAdministrative RemediesExclusivity ProvisionUnion ConstitutionPreliminary ReliefElection Violations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First American Title Insurance Co. v. Strayhorn

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers doing business in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. Previously, 100% of premium tax was included in the financial burden; the new interpretation reduced this to 15%, shifting 85% responsibility to title agents. Appellants argued this change was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to increased retaliatory taxes. The district court granted summary judgment for the Comptroller, finding the new interpretation reasonable and constitutional. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Comptroller's interpretation and application of the retaliatory tax scheme were valid and did not violate equal protection.

Title InsuranceRetaliatory TaxPremium TaxTax LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas
References
46
Case No. 91 Civ. 1499 (LAP)
Regular Panel Decision

Radio-Electronics Officers Union, District 3 v. Radio Officers Joint Employment Committee

This case concerns a dispute over the rightful president of the Radio-Electronics Officers Union (ROU) and the disbursement of funds owed by two ROU-affiliated plans. Plaintiff-intervenor Jim H. DeLong moved to dismiss the action, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The primary issue revolved around whether the court could determine the ROU's valid presidency, which would constitute a challenge to prior union elections under the LMRDA Title IV. The court found that despite attempts to frame the claims under ERISA, the core of the controversy required validating one of two contested ROU elections. Since LMRDA Title IV provides the exclusive statutory remedy for such election challenges, and the Secretary of Labor did not initiate the suit, the federal court lacked the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to proceed.

LMRDA Title IVERISA JurisdictionUnion Presidency DisputeElection ValidityExclusive Statutory RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Court DismissalLabor Union GovernanceInternal Union RemediesSecretary of Labor Intervention
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Mayes v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106

Plaintiffs George Mayes and John Gregory Fox, union members, initiated an action against their union, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 106, alleging violations of the LMRDA and breach of the union's constitution. They sought a preliminary injunction to alter the ballot for an upcoming union election, requesting separate listings for consolidated offices and the exclusion of certain candidates. The Union opposed the application and cross-moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the action, reasoning that granting the requested pre-election relief would inappropriately involve the court in supervising a union election, a role reserved for the Secretary of Labor under Title IV of the LMRDA. The Court affirmed that Title IV provides the exclusive post-election remedy for union election challenges.

Union Election DisputeLMRDALabor Union GovernancePreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesElection ChallengeSecretary of Labor Oversight
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. District Council No. 9

The plaintiff, Frank F. Arnold, sought an injunction to prevent Local Union 490 from electing its business representative, arguing that an unqualified candidate, Daniel French, was improperly reinstated on the ballot. Arnold contended that this violated his equal rights to nominate and vote under Sections 101 and 102 (Title I) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The court, presided over by Judge Motley, dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Calhoon v. Harvey, the court clarified that challenges concerning candidate qualifications fall under Title IV of the LMRDA, which mandates post-election administrative remedies through the Secretary of Labor, rather than pre-election judicial intervention under Title I. The court further declined to create a federal common law remedy, emphasizing Congress's intent for a comprehensive statutory scheme governing union elections.

Union ElectionsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVJurisdictionCandidate EligibilityVoting RightsLabor Union DisputesInjunctionsFederal Courts
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. McReynolds

Stewart Title Guaranty Company initiated an action in the Chancery Court of Davidson County, seeking a refund for risk rate and retaliatory taxes levied by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance. The chancellor dismissed the claim, ruling that the Tennessee Claims Commission held exclusive jurisdiction over tax refund cases. On appeal, Stewart Title challenged this decision, contending that relevant statutes did not confer jurisdiction to the commission for such claims and that the state constitution mandated review of tax assessments by constitutionally established courts. The appellate court affirmed the chancellor's judgment, interpreting the claims commission act to vest exclusive jurisdiction for all state tax recoveries, excluding those handled by the commissioner of revenue, with the Tennessee Claims Commission. Furthermore, the court systematically addressed and rejected Stewart Title's constitutional arguments concerning the act's scope, due process, separation of powers, and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, solidifying the commission's role in these matters.

Tax RefundInsurance TaxJurisdictionClaims CommissionChancery CourtStatutory ConstructionConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeparation of PowersAppellate Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commer v. District Council 37, Local 375

Plaintiff Roy Commer filed an action against Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, and District Council 37 (collectively, 'Defendants'), alleging two primary claims: (1) that the Local Union improperly amended its Constitution, violating the AFSCME Constitution, and (2) that the Defendants violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by failing to certify his election as president. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, determining that the Election Claim was preempted by Title IV of the LMRDA, which designates the Secretary of Labor as the exclusive enforcer for post-election challenges, thereby precluding private action under Title I. Regarding the Amendment Claim, the court found that Commer had chosen to pursue internal union remedies with the International Union’s Judicial Panel and had not yet exhausted them, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Labor Union DisputeUnion Election ChallengeLMRDA PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesInternal Union GovernanceUnion Constitution AmendmentOfficer Election CertificationFederal Court JurisdictionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,355 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