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. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2014

B.K. v. New York City Department of Education

G.K., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, faced educational challenges for the 2011-2012 school year. His parents, B.K. and Y.K., initiated legal action against the New York City Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to provide G.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for G.K.'s private special education program and direct funding for home-based therapy, appealing an administrative decision that had previously denied their claims. The Department subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court, after conducting an independent review of the administrative record and giving due weight to the state administrative proceedings, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Department's cross-motion, concluding that the May 2011 Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the Department was procedurally and substantively adequate.

Individualized Education ProgramFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingBehavioral Intervention PlanFunctional Behavioral AssessmentParental Participation
References
46
Case No. 07 Civ. 2265
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2008

MM Ex Rel. AM v. NY. CITY DEPT. OF EDUC. REG.

This case involves M.M. and H.M., parents of A.M., an autistic child, appealing administrative decisions regarding A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The plaintiffs sought a modified de novo review, alleging procedural and substantive violations by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment, upholding the administrative findings that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Additionally, the court concluded that A.M. was not entitled to reimbursement for private school placement or continued early intervention services during the pendency of the dispute.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationPendency ProvisionTuition Reimbursement
References
28
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
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1982

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Connetquot Central School District & Connetquot Teachers Ass'n

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming a Special Term's order directing a board of education to arbitrate a grievance filed by a teachers union. The union's claim involves continued use of office space in school district buildings, citing a collective bargaining agreement and past practice. The dissent contends that the arbitration clause is broad and encompasses the dispute, rejecting the employer's argument that law or public policy (specifically Education Law § 414 or Civil Service Law § 209-a) prohibits arbitration of this grievance. Justice O'Connor asserts that the union's use of office space for its statutory duties as a collective bargaining agent serves a "school purpose," similar to administrative and support services, and thus is not excluded by Education Law § 414. The dissent concludes that the order compelling arbitration should be affirmed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceTeachers UnionBoard of EducationOffice SpaceSchool PropertyEducation LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board
References
15
Case No. M2005-02719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

Wilson County Board of Education v. Wilson County Education Association and Steve Johnson

An assistant principal, Steve Johnson, was transferred to a teaching position by the Wilson County Board of Education. He, along with the Wilson County Education Association, grieved the transfer under a locally negotiated agreement. After the grievance was denied through internal steps, they sought to compel arbitration in the Chancery Court for Wilson County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that assistant principals are statutorily similar to principals, giving the director of schools unrestrained authority to transfer them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that despite the agreement mentioning "binding arbitration," it also stated that the arbitrator "may recommend" remedies, creating an inconsistency that prevented a "meeting of the minds" on the final resolution procedure, thus rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Education Professional Negotiations ActGrievance ProcedureArbitration AgreementMeeting of the MindsContract InterpretationTeacher TransferAssistant PrincipalStatutory AuthoritySchool Board PowersBinding vs. Advisory Arbitration
References
29
Case No. CA 11-01225
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2012

BOARD OF ED. OF DUDEE CENTRAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment concerning disciplinary charges against a tenured teacher, Douglas Coleman, by the Board of Education of Dundee Central School District. An initial Hearing Officer's award, which included a six-month suspension and continued health benefits, was challenged by the Board. The Supreme Court partially granted the Board's petition, vacating the dismissal of six specifications and the order for continued health benefits, and remitted the matter for further consideration. On remittal, the Hearing Officer reimposed the same penalty based on an erroneous legal interpretation regarding counseling memoranda. The Supreme Court then vacated this penalty and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer for penalty imposition. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments of the Supreme Court, holding that counseling memoranda are not disciplinary actions and that the Hearing Officer exceeded authority by ordering continued health benefits during suspension.

ArbitrationTeacher DisciplineSchool BoardEducation LawCounseling MemorandaJudicial ReviewPenaltyHealth Insurance BenefitsAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
23
Case No. Nos. 03-14-00283-CV and 03-14-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. American Youthworks, Inc., D/B/A American Youthworks Charter School Honors Academy, Inc., D/B/A Honors Academy And Azleway Inc., D/B/A Azleway Charter School

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner of Education Mike Morath against temporary injunctions granted to three charter holders: American YouthWorks, Inc., Honors Academy, Inc., and Azleway, Inc. The charter holders sued after the Commissioner initiated charter revocation proceedings under new 2013 legislation targeting underperforming open-enrollment charter schools. The district court had temporarily enjoined further revocation actions. The appellate court examined whether the charter holders' claims, including constitutional and ultra vires assertions, could overcome sovereign immunity and invoke the district court's inherent jurisdiction, given statutory prohibitions on judicial review. The court ultimately concluded that the pleadings did not sufficiently invoke such inherent jurisdiction, and thus, the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the vacating of the injunctions and dismissal of the suits.

Education LawCharter SchoolsCharter RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionsDeclaratory ReliefUltra Vires Claims
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 7,010 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