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

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotze v. Brown

This case involves an appeal from a temporary injunction and a dismissal for lack of standing. Richard Hotze and City Councilman Rob Todd sued the City of Houston and Mayor Lee Brown after Brown signed an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, arguing it was invalid and usurped the city council's power. The trial court dismissed Hotze for lack of standing but granted Todd's application for a temporary injunction. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of Hotze's claims, finding he lacked standing as his alleged injuries were not peculiar to him. The court also affirmed the temporary injunction for Todd, ruling that as a city council member, he had standing due to the alleged usurpation of the council's power to make employment rules. The court determined the injury to Todd was imminent and irreparable, justifying the injunction.

StandingTemporary InjunctionExecutive OrderSexual Orientation DiscriminationCity Council PowersMayor AuthorityUltra Vires ActsLegislative PowerJudicial ReviewInterlocutory Appeal
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of A.M., A.M. and B.M., Children

This case involves an appeal by a maternal aunt and grandmother who sought to adopt three children (A.M., A.M., and B.M.) after the biological parents' rights were terminated. The aunt filed a petition for adoption over nine months after the termination, and the grandmother intervened. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing the petition was filed more than 90 days after parental rights termination and without the Department's consent. The trial court granted the dismissal for lack of standing. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Appellants lacked statutory standing under the Texas Family Code sections 102.005 and 102.006. The appellate court further ruled that equitable estoppel could not confer jurisdiction where statutory standing was absent and rejected the Appellants' constitutional due process challenges to the 90-day filing deadline.

Adoption LawStanding (Law)Parental Rights TerminationTexas Family CodeEquitable EstoppelDue ProcessConstitutional ChallengeChild WelfareManaging ConservatorshipAppellate Procedure
References
33
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. 01-07-00321-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

Koll Bren Fund VI LP and Hartman 3100 Weslayan Acquisitions, LP v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for judicial review brought by Koll Bren Fund VI, LP and Hartman 3100 Weslayan Acquisitions against the Harris County Appraisal District. Appellants challenged the dismissal of their ad valorem tax-valuation protest for the 2005 tax year. The trial court had granted HCAD's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Koll Bren lacked standing as it had sold the property prior to January 1, 2005. The appellate court agreed, ruling that Koll Bren, not being the owner, had no standing, and Hartman, the true owner, also lacked standing for failing to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing its own protest with the Appraisal Review Board. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court correctly lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

property taxad valorem taxjudicial reviewstandingjurisdictionappellate procedureTexas Tax CodeHarris CountyAppraisal Review Boardexhaustion of remedies
References
21
Case No. 2-05-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2006

Donald E. Kilpatrick and Pamela Gale Johnson, Trustee v. Timothy S. Kilpatrick, Kevin K. Kilpatrick, Kilpatrick Limited Partnership, Kilpatrick Ventures, Ltd., Shamrock Investments, L.L.C., KSR Family, Ltd., KMK Family, Ltd., BPC Holding Corp., Pescor, Inc., and Berry Plastics Corporation

Donald E. Kilpatrick and Trustee Pamela Gale Johnson appealed a summary judgment ruling regarding Don's claims over Pescor stock. Don alleged fraudulent acquisition of his stock by his brothers, Timothy and Kevin Kilpatrick, who supposedly misrepresented the need for the stock and failed to disclose a potential sale of Pescor to BPC Holding Corp. The trial court's summary judgment stated Don lacked standing for 900 shares due to non-disclosure in prior bankruptcies, thus remaining assets of the bankruptcy estate. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing disclosure importance in bankruptcy and that undisclosed assets do not revest with the debtor, upholding that Don lacked standing upon filing the lawsuit. Additionally, the appellate court dismissed arguments about the Trustee's consent or amended pleadings retroactively curing Don's initial lack of standing.

Stock ownership disputeBankruptcy lawJudicial estoppelStanding doctrineCorporate fraudUndisclosed assetsChapter 13 bankruptcySummary judgment reviewAppellate procedureFiduciary duty
References
27
Case No. 2-09-335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

in Re Chassidie L. Russell

This is an original proceeding where Relator Chassidie L. Russell challenged the trial court's temporary orders that granted access and possession of her daughter, CAIH, to Janet and Kenneth Harvey (the Harveys), who are CAIH's paternal grandparents. Chassidie contended that the trial court abused its discretion because the Harveys lacked standing under the Texas Family Code. The appellate court found that David Harvey, CAIH's father, was not deployed, thus invalidating orders based on military deployment. Furthermore, the Harveys were neither biological nor adoptive grandparents, nor related to CAIH within the third degree of consanguinity, thereby lacking standing to intervene or seek managing conservatorship. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior orders and dismiss the Harveys' pleadings for lack of standing, and directed the Harveys to immediately return CAIH to Chassidie.

Custody DisputeGrandparent VisitationStandingMandamus ReliefFamily LawTexas Family CodeAbuse of DiscretionParental RightsDue ProcessChild's Best Interest
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 9,399 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