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. 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. 03-08-00481-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2009

Resolution Oversight Corporation as Special Receiver of Financial Insurance Company of America v. Arturo Garza

Resolution Oversight Corporation, acting as the special receiver for Financial Insurance Company of America (FIC), sought to enforce FIC's subrogation rights against funds paid by Home State County Mutual Insurance Company to Arturo Garza. Garza, an injured employee, had received workers' compensation benefits from FIC following an automobile accident and subsequently settled a claim with Home State, the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier for his employer, Texas Towing. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Garza, denying FIC's subrogation interest in the UIM proceeds. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, affirming FIC's valid subrogation lien and rejecting the 'made whole' doctrine for statutory subrogation. The appellate court further determined that Garza was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees from FIC's recovery, remanding the case for their determination.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation rightsUninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UIM) benefitsSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAttorney's FeesInsurer Receivership ActTexas Labor CodeContractual LiabilityThird-party action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
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. 22 S.W.3d 870
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin

This dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Abbott, Hecht, and Owen, argues against the Court's majority decision that Section 26.179 of the Texas Water Code unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to private landowners. The justices assert that the Legislature holds the prerogative to limit regulatory authority previously granted to local governments, and that Section 26.179 represents a valid exercise of this power to foster economic development while ensuring water quality. They contend that the statute establishes clear water-quality standards with comprehensive TNRCC oversight, thus avoiding unconstitutional delegation. The dissent also rejects arguments that Section 26.179 is an unconstitutional local or special law, or a retroactive law, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and private property rights in the state's regulatory framework.

Constitutional LawDelegation of PowerLegislative AuthorityPrivate Property RightsWater Quality RegulationExtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)Texas Water CodeStatutory InterpretationLocal Government PowerJudicial Review
References
46
Case No. CA4-90-676-A
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1991

Burlington Northern Railroad v. Office of Inspector General

The case involves William J. Doyle III, Inspector General of the Railroad Retirement Board, seeking to enforce a subpoena against Burlington Northern Railroad Company for an audit. Burlington resisted, arguing Doyle lacked statutory authority for such an audit, which they characterized as a "program operating responsibility" belonging to the Railroad Retirement Board and Internal Revenue Service, not an oversight function of the Inspector General. The court examined the legislative history of the Inspector General Act of 1978 and concluded that Congress intended the Inspector General to have an oversight role, not to conduct regulatory audits integral to agency programs. The court found Doyle's initial explanations of the audit's regulatory nature credible, while his later "spot check" justifications were not. Consequently, the court denied the enforcement of the subpoena, ruling that Doyle lacked the statutory authority to conduct the planned regulatory audit.

Inspector General ActSubpoena EnforcementStatutory AuthorityRegulatory AuditOversight AuthorityRailroad Retirement BoardInternal Revenue ServiceCongressional IntentProgram Operating ResponsibilitiesAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker Bros. Waste v. Dyer County Legislative Body

Plaintiff Barker Brothers Waste, Inc. and Northwest Tennessee Disposal Corporation sued defendant Dyer County Legislative Body and Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) over a waste service contract in Dyer County, Tennessee. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as state competitive bidding statutes. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the Dyer County bidding process was not discriminatory under the Commerce Clause, and that the market participant doctrine would immunize the county's actions even if it were discriminatory. Plaintiffs' Due Process claim was also found to be without merit, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Waste ManagementContract DisputeCommerce ClauseDue ProcessCompetitive BiddingMarket Participant DoctrinePreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionDyer CountyMunicipal Contracts
References
46
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 687 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