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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager with the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported several alleged legal violations by his employer to the State Auditor’s Office. Howard subsequently experienced retaliation, including denial of promotions and merit pay increases, which he attributed to his whistleblowing activities. He successfully sued the department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages. The Department appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including good faith reporting, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationPerformance EvaluationEmployment DiscriminationState Auditor's OfficeGood Faith ReportCausal LinkEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

DEPT. OF ASSISTIVE & REHAB. SERV. v. Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices by his employer to the State Auditor's Office. He claimed retaliation after his superiors learned of his report, leading to negative performance appraisals and denied promotions and merit pay increases despite an exemplary 24-year work record. Howard sued the Department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including the report's good faith, the appropriateness of the authority, and causation. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor's OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialCausationGood Faith ReportEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoff v. North American Aviation, Inc.

The case concerns a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 regarding the classification of assistant foremen and foremen at a large wartime manufacturing plant. The plaintiffs (assistant foremen, foremen, and two widows of deceased foremen) argued they were not exempt executive or administrative employees, claiming they spent more than 20% of their time performing non-exempt tasks similar to the timekeepers they supervised. Presiding Judge Atwell reviewed the statutory definitions of executive and administrative roles, noting their inherent requirements for authority and discretion. After careful consideration of the testimony, the court found the plaintiffs' proof of excessive non-exempt work to be insufficient and concluded that the assistant foremen and foremen indeed exercised significant leadership and discretion. Consequently, judgment was ordered in favor of the defendant, denying the plaintiffs' claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActExecutive Employee ExemptionAdministrative Employee ExemptionWartime ProductionTimekeepersForemenAssistant ForemenEmployee ClassificationWage and Hour LawDiscretionary Powers
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06960 No. 16-20
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2025

Matter of Klosterman v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision regarding the eligibility for federal pandemic unemployment benefits. The case addressed whether full-time civil service employees, paid an annual salary but not performing optional summer work due to COVID-19, qualified as "totally unemployed" under New York's Labor Law. The Court held that the New York State Department of Labor correctly applied the state's "total unemployment" requirement, finding the claimants ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), and Lost Wage Assistance (LWA). It concluded that the state law requirement did not conflict with the CARES Act, as the Act did not displace state eligibility frameworks, and thus, NYSDOL properly charged claimants with overpayments.

Unemployment Insurance LawCARES ActCOVID-19 BenefitsPandemic Unemployment AssistanceNew York Labor LawTotal Unemployment RequirementStatutory InterpretationEligibility for BenefitsPublic Sector EmploymentAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Hudson Legal Services, Inc. v. G & U, INC.

Plaintiffs, a federally-funded legal aid organization and its attorneys, sought an injunction against a corporate farm and its proprietors for denying them access to migrant farmworkers residing on the farm's property. The plaintiffs intended to distribute a Spanish language booklet on farmworker rights and offer legal assistance. Defendants justified their denial based on their right to prevent trespass and accused plaintiffs of fomenting labor unrest and impermissibly soliciting clients. The court found the defendants' arguments unpersuasive, ruling that the farm, operating as a 'company town,' could not deny plaintiffs their First Amendment right to enter and discuss living or working conditions with its inhabitants. Consequently, the court issued a permanent injunction, preventing the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' access to the agricultural labor camps for providing services mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 2861 et seq.

Migrant FarmworkersFarmworker RightsFirst AmendmentAccess RightsCompany Town DoctrinePermanent Injunction42 U.S.C. § 1983Legal AidAgricultural Labor CampsCivil Rights
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,017 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