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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schoonmaker v. Capital Region Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The petitioner, a senior keyboard specialist for BOCES, challenged the reduction of her work hours from full-time to 75% due to reduced workload. She argued this violated Civil Service Law § 80, asserting that employees with less seniority maintained full hours. The Supreme Court dismissed her petition, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that a reduction in work hours, without a corresponding reduction in rank or salary grade or conversion to a part-time position as defined by local rules, does not constitute an "abolition or reduction in rank or salary grade" under Civil Service Law § 80. The court emphasized a strict interpretation of the statute's plain meaning and noted that legislative efforts to include hour reductions in the statute were previously vetoed, indicating legislative intent.

Civil Service LawEmployment HoursSeniority RightsStatutory InterpretationPublic Sector EmploymentReduction in ForceCPLR Article 78Albany CountyAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coalition of United Peoples, Inc. v. Brady

The petitioner appeals an order denying a preliminary injunction, which sought to halt a transitional housing project in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County. The petitioner challenged the Westchester County Board of Legislators' acceptance of a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project, alleging it was deficient under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of showing entitlement to relief. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the Board had properly identified and taken a hard look at the environmental concerns, making a reasoned elaboration for its determination, and that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

CPLR Article 78Environmental Quality Review ActSEQRAPreliminary InjunctionEnvironmental Impact StatementTransitional HousingJudicial ReviewStandard of ReviewGovernment ActionLand Development
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. Hall

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addressed the compatibility of holding a county legislator position and a municipal Police Chief position concurrently. The respondent, elected as a Westchester County Legislator, sought to retain his role as Police Chief of the Town/Village of Harrison. Petitioners argued that these two offices were incompatible under common law and a local Westchester County law (Local Law No. 10). The court, presided over by John P. DiBlasi, J., found both common-law incompatibility and a statutory bar applied. It ruled that by accepting and qualifying for the county legislator position on December 3, 2001, the respondent, by implication, resigned from his Police Chief position as per established common law. Consequently, the court vacated a prior preliminary injunction that had prevented the respondent from fully exercising his powers as a county legislator, affirming his eligibility for the legislative role since December 3, 2001.

Incompatible OfficesDual Office HoldingPublic OfficerCounty LegislatorPolice ChiefCommon Law IncompatibilityStatutory BarLocal LawWestchester CountyImplied Resignation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1997

Di Blasi v. Traffax Traffic Network

Plaintiff, an on-air traffic announcer for Traffax Traffic Network, was discharged after reporting for jury duty despite his supervisor's directive to report to work. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Judiciary Law § 519 and wrongful/retaliatory discharge, as well as breach of contract. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that neither section of the Judiciary Law provided a private cause of action and that his employment was at-will, precluding a breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that allowing a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme and acknowledging the Legislature's veto of a bill to amend Judiciary Law § 519 to include a civil remedy. The court also found no support for a breach of contract claim, reiterating that his at-will employment could be terminated for any reason.

jury dutywrongful dischargeretaliatory dischargeemployment at willprivate right of actionlegislative intentstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentbreach of contractemployee protection
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 599 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