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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korean American Nail Salon Ass'n of New York, Inc. v. Cuomo

This case involves a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action brought by two trade groups representing Korean and Chinese owned nail salons in New York State. Petitioners sought to vacate the September 4, 2015 emergency rule by the NYS Department of State (DOS), which mandated wage bonds, and challenged the August 7, 2015 certification by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) that wage coverage was 'readily available.' These actions followed state investigations into wage violations in nail salons and new legislation aimed at protecting workers in the industry. The court ultimately rejected all of petitioners' arguments, finding no arbitrary action by the DFS, sufficient statutory authority, and proper justification for the emergency rule under the State Administrative Procedure Act. Claims of due process and equal protection violations were also dismissed, as the court determined the legislation served a legitimate state interest in worker protection. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and injunctive relief was denied.

wage bond mandatenail salon industryCPLR Article 78declaratory judgmentemergency regulationState Administrative Procedure Actdue processequal protectionworker protectionregulatory challenge
References
7
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T. v. David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, State of Texas, and the Texas Legislative Budget Board

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2000

Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a certified question regarding the necessity of state legislative approval for the City of New York to construct a water treatment plant on parkland. The City had selected the Mosholu Golf Course in Van Cortlandt Park for the plant, a project mandated by a consent decree. Plaintiffs, including the State of New York and citizen groups, argued that using dedicated parkland for a non-park purpose required legislative consent under the public trust doctrine. The court sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that a substantial intrusion on parkland for non-park uses, even if ownership isn't transferred and restoration is planned, mandates direct and specific approval from the State Legislature, thereby answering the certified question in the affirmative.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland AlienationWater Treatment PlantEnvironmental LawVan Cortlandt ParkMosholu Golf CourseLegislative ApprovalConsent DecreeNew York CityState Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutter v. Perales

The plaintiff, a home relief recipient, received a lump-sum Social Security settlement, leading to the discontinuation of her public assistance and a period of ineligibility under a Commissioner's regulation (18 NYCRR 352.29 [h]). She challenged the regulation's validity, arguing the Commissioner lacked rule-making authority for Home Relief recipients since the program is not federally funded and State amendatory legislation did not explicitly require such a rule. The court disagreed, holding that the 1981 amendatory legislation, read in its entirety and with legislative history, provided sufficient implicit authority for the Commissioner to enact the regulation. The court found that the legislative intent was to ensure consistency between the ADC and Home Relief programs to prevent shifting caseloads, despite the lack of direct federal mandate for Home Relief. The order of the lower court was modified and affirmed, with two judges dissenting.

Lump Sum IncomeHome ReliefPublic Assistance EligibilityRegulatory AuthoritySocial Services Law InterpretationLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAFDC Program
References
7
Case No. 01-18-00863-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

Charles Lee Farris, Jr. v. State

This dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of a conviction for murder, an "Old Code felony crime," on the grounds that the appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The dissenting judge asserts that Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution provides an absolute mandate for a speedy public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal prosecutions, a mandate that has been consistently overlooked by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The opinion delves into the historical context of this provision, tracing its origins to the 1836 Texas Declaration of Rights and highlighting the framers' intent to protect individual liberties against governmental overreach, particularly contrasting with Mexican civil law. It critiques the legislative and judicial expansion of jury trial waivers, arguing they defy the clear constitutional requirement for Old Code felony prosecutions. The dissent concludes that, given the specific mandate for such cases, the appellant's conviction should be reversed and remanded for a jury trial.

Criminal ProsecutionJury Trial RightsTexas Constitutional LawOld Code FeloniesDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessLegal InterpretationCriminal ProcedureWaiver of Jury Trial
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polmanteer v. Bobo

Justice Gorski's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Education Law § 2023 (1) concerning the funding of 'ordinary contingent expenses' in school district contingency budgets. The dissent contends that the 1997 amendment, which replaced 'may' with 'shall,' mandates the inclusion of expenses for interschool athletics, field trips, and other extracurricular activities when a budget is rejected by voters. Gorski disagrees with the majority's view that 'shall' applies only to the adoption of the contingency budget and levy, asserting it also mandates the inclusion of the enumerated expenses. The dissent emphasizes that the plain language of the statute, reflecting clear legislative intent, should be respected, even if it alters historical discretion given to boards of education. While concurring with some aspects of the majority's decision, Gorski believes the court erred in mandating a 'pro rata' inclusion of disputed items, advocating for the inclusion of previously deemed necessary funds subject to statutory limitations.

Education LawContingency BudgetSchool FundingStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionOrdinary Contingent ExpensesInterschool AthleticsExtracurricular ActivitiesLegislative IntentMandatory Funding
References
4
Case No. 889 F. Supp. 98
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1995

Haley v. Pataki

Legislative employees of New York State sought a preliminary injunction to compel payment of their bi-weekly salaries, which were withheld by Governor Pataki after March 31, 1995, amidst a state budget dispute. They alleged violations of the Contract Clause, Equal Protection, Due Process, and separation of powers. The court dismissed the State of New York as a defendant due to Eleventh Amendment immunity but proceeded against Governor Pataki. Finding irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the Contract Clause claim, the court issued a mandatory preliminary injunction. This order requires the Governor, when seeking future appropriations for state workers, not to exclude legislative employees and to allocate funds for their payment.

Preliminary InjunctionContract ClauseEleventh AmendmentState EmployeesWage DisputeSeparation of PowersDue ProcessEqual ProtectionNew York StateGovernor's Powers
References
33
Case No. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fullilove v. Carey

Governor Carey issued Executive Order No. 45, mandating affirmative action programs for state contractors. A coalition of labor organizations and construction industry associations challenged this order, arguing it exceeded the Governor's executive authority and encroached upon the legislative branch's power. The Supreme Court initially ruled Executive Order No. 45 unconstitutional. Governor Carey subsequently appealed this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that Executive Order No. 45 improperly extended and expanded statutory requirements, thereby constituting an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the Governor and rendering the order unenforceable.

Executive OrderAffirmative ActionConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersExecutive AuthorityLegislative PowerLabor Law ComplianceDiscrimination in EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentJudicial Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,803 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