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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Town of Esopus

Petitioner, employed as a building department aide since 2001, challenged respondent's decision to eliminate her full-time position in January 2005, replacing it with two part-time roles, which respondent claimed was for economy and efficiency. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, back pay, and benefits, but the Supreme Court dismissed her application. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous employment in a noncompetitive class for five years, which would grant Civil Service Law protection, and did not prove that the elimination of her position was motivated by bad faith or subterfuge. Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent adhered to the doctrine of legislative equivalency, as the position was created and abolished by the same legislative means.

CPLR article 78Civil Service LawPublic employmentPosition eliminationReinstatementEconomy and efficiencyLegislative equivalency doctrineBad faithAppellate reviewGovernment restructuring
References
10
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. FRE 0197989, FRE 0200410
Regular
Feb 04, 2008

SANDRA LaPLANTE vs. WAL-MART, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG, FRANK GATES SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding that the WCJ erred by not applying the *Benson* doctrine on apportionment of permanent disability based on causation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the percentage of permanent disability attributable to each industrial injury and pre-existing conditions, as required by Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The *Benson* doctrine dictates that the prior *Wilkinson* doctrine, allowing combined awards in successive injury cases, is no longer generally applicable due to the legislative intent for causation-based apportionment.

Wilkinson doctrineBenson v. The Permanente Groupapportionmentcausationsuccessive industrial injuriescumulative traumaspecific injurypermanent disability ratingmedical examiner reportcompensable consequence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a wrongful death action. The plaintiffs, the decedent's wife and child, sued Spinks Industries, Inc., the decedent's employer, alleging strict liability under the “dual capacity” doctrine. The decedent, an employee of Spinks Industries, was killed piloting a helicopter leased by Spinks to its wholly owned subsidiary, Helix Air Transports, Inc. Spinks argued that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy, as the decedent was covered by their policy. The court examined the "dual capacity" doctrine and Texas workers' compensation law, ultimately rejecting the doctrine as inconsistent with the legislative intent for exclusive remedies under workers' compensation. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Spinks Industries, Inc. was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentDual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStrict LiabilityHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neagle v. Nelson

Justice Robertson concurs with the majority opinion but respectfully disagrees with Justice Kilgarlin’s conclusions. Robertson argues that the legislative intent to abolish the “discovery rule” in *Gaddis v. Smith* via Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 5.82 and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 4590i is not manifest in the plain language of the statutes and that legislative history should not be the starting point without ambiguity. He also finds the analogy to workers’ compensation law for determining permissible delay in malpractice cases to be strained due to numerous distinctions. Robertson maintains that the "discovery rule" issue and alternatives to workers' compensation analogy remain open questions, suggesting common law and equitable doctrines like laches. Justice Kilgarlin also provides a concurring opinion, addressing questions left unanswered by the court. He states that if the fact that Neagle reasonably should not have known of his injury during the limitations period is controverted, Neagle bears the burden of proof. Kilgarlin concludes that the legislative intent was to overrule *Gaddis v. Smith*'s discovery rule, and therefore, a two-year period after discovery cannot be reinstated. He proposes adopting the "good cause" standard from workers’ compensation law to determine permissible delay for filing suit after discovery in medical malpractice cases where discovery could not occur within two years of the tort or last treatment. Both justices concur in reversing and remanding the case.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsLegislative IntentWorkers' Compensation AnalogyOpen Courts ProvisionGood CauseTexas LawConcurring OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
9
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

Acrison, Inc. v. Schenck Corp.

This is a patent infringement action where Acrison, Inc. alleges that Schenck Corporation infringed two of its patents for "loss-in-weight" feeder systems. These systems utilize microprocessor circuitry to maintain a steady discharge rate by mitigating external disturbances. Schenck moved for summary judgment, asserting non-infringement, specifically challenging the interpretation of Element H of Claim 1 of the 102 patent concerning signal comparison and disturbance response. The court found no literal infringement but denied summary judgment, concluding that a reasonable jury could find equivalence between the two systems under the doctrine of equivalents, and rejected Schenck's arguments regarding file history estoppel and independent patentability.

Patent infringementLoss-in-weight feederMicroprocessor circuitryDoctrine of equivalentsSummary judgmentClaim interpretationFile history estoppelDigital circuitryAnalog circuitryIndustrial control systems
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,604 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