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. 03-05-00585-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte John Dominick Colyandro

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro appealed the denial of their pretrial habeas corpus petitions, seeking dismissal of indictments for unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the Texas Election Code provisions and the money laundering statute were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the district court's orders. The court held that the election code's restrictions on corporate campaign contributions were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the pre-2005 money laundering statute, which did not include checks or other negotiable instruments as "funds," was also not facially vague.

Campaign FinanceMoney LaunderingConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengeFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsElection CodeStatutory InterpretationPretrial Habeas Corpus
References
50
Case No. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR, 03-05-00596-CR, 03-05-00597-CR, 03-05-00598-CR, 03-05-00599-CR, 03-05-00600-CR, 03-05-00601-CR, 03-05-00602-CR, 03-05-00603-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte Ellis

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro sought the dismissal of indictments accusing them of accepting unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the election code provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the money laundering statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the orders of the district court, holding that the election code's prohibitions on corporate political contributions are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the pre-2005 version of the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as it did not include checks.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineCampaign FinanceMoney LaunderingElection LawFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsStatutory InterpretationCriminal Indictments
References
83
Case No. 13-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2015

John C. Dempsey A/K/A Jack Dempsey and 401 Gold Consultants v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. D/B/A United States Rare Coin & Bullion Reserve

U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. sued John C. Dempsey for an injunction and money judgment based on a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied Dempsey’s motion to stay arbitration and, after an arbitration award of $1,650,000.00 was entered, confirmed the award despite Dempsey's objections. This appeal argues that the arbitration provision did not cover the specific dispute regarding a breach of contract and liquidated damages, and that USMR waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process for over three years.

Arbitration AgreementNon-Compete ClauseBreach of ContractWaiver of ArbitrationJudicial ProcessAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment MotionInjunctive ReliefLiquidated DamagesTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Schlesinger

The government sought a preliminary order of forfeiture against Nat Sehlesinger and Goodmark Industries, Inc. for over $21 million, alleging assets were proceeds of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The defendants were convicted following a jury trial in May 2005, based on schemes involving fraudulent insurance claims for fires at their business property and defrauding creditors through shell corporations. The court determined that the Wallabout Street Property, which housed the business, facilitated the money laundering offense. It also ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for mail and wire fraud even without 'special circumstances,' acting as a 'gap filler' where civil forfeiture is authorized. Consequently, the court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific sums related to money laundering, insurance fraud proceeds, and creditor fraud proceeds.

Criminal ForfeitureMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingInsurance FraudCreditor FraudAsset ForfeitureWallabout Street PropertyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)18 U.S.C. § 982
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Villanueva Madrid

Defendant Consuelo Marquez, an investment broker, was indicted on seventeen counts, including conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Marquez sought severance of the money laundering charge (Count One) from the bank and wire fraud charges (Counts Two through Seventeen), dismissal of certain charges, and various discovery orders. The court granted her motion for severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing the undue prejudice that would arise from a joint trial due to the potentially inflammatory nature of the money laundering evidence. The court denied the motion to dismiss the wire fraud charges based on deprivation of honest services, finding the indictment facially sufficient. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Marquez's discovery motions, setting a schedule for the disclosure of Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence, and witness lists.

SeveranceMoney LaunderingBank FraudWire FraudConspiracyFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureUndue PrejudiceDiscovery OrdersHonest Services FraudFiduciary Duty
References
30
Case No. 10-07-00369-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Trey Davis and Money of the United States in the Amount of $15,273.25 v. State

Trey Davis appealed the trial court's decision to overrule his motion for a new trial following a default judgment of forfeiture. The State of Texas had sought forfeiture of $15,273.25 in cash, found in Davis's bedroom, under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging it was contraband. Davis failed to file an answer, resulting in the default judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The court found that Davis satisfied all elements, demonstrating his failure to answer was not intentional, he presented a meritorious defense by asserting the money came from insurance claims, and granting a new trial would not prejudice the State. Consequently, the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and reversed the judgment, remanding the case.

Default JudgmentForfeitureMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsAppellate ReviewTexas Criminal ProcedureContrabandMeritorious DefenseCash Forfeiture
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2000

Doe v. United States

In March 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas published a false news release stating that Plaintiffs had been indicted by a federal grand jury for mail fraud and money laundering, despite no such indictments occurring. Plaintiffs, associated with various temporary labor companies, filed a lawsuit in November 1999, seeking money damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, after an administrative claim went unanswered. The Defendant, United States, moved to dismiss the case, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and the intentional tort exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) of the FTCA. The Court granted the motion, finding that both claims 'arose out of' libel or slander, which are explicitly excepted from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the invasion of privacy claim by publication of private facts failed because it requires the publication of true, intimate facts, whereas the Plaintiffs' complaint centered on the publication of falsehoods. Consequently, all of Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Sovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionLibelSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressInvasion of PrivacyPublication of Private FactsFalsehoods
References
42
Case No. 01cv5694
Regular Panel Decision

Mazzei v. Money Store

Plaintiff Joseph Mazzei initiated a class action against The Money Store and related entities, alleging breach of contract for improperly charged mortgage late fees and attorney fee-splitting. The case involved two certified classes: a "Post Acceleration Late Fee Class" and a "Fee Split Class," with a jury finding for Mazzei and the Late Fee Class on late fees but for defendants on the fee-splitting claim. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial regarding the fee-splitting claim was denied, as the court found the jury's verdict was not seriously erroneous. The defendants successfully moved to decertify the Late Fee Class and were granted judgment as a matter of law, because the plaintiff failed to prove class-wide contractual privity with all class members, especially those whose loans were only serviced by the defendants. Consequently, the jury's $54 million damages award for the Late Fee Class could not be upheld, leading to the class's decertification.

Class ActionBreach of ContractMortgage LoanLate FeesLoan AccelerationFee SplittingLoan ServicingPost-Trial MotionsClass DecertificationJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Modern Transfer Co. v. Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730

This case concerns an action for a permanent injunction and money damages brought by unnamed plaintiffs, identified as interstate carriers, against unnamed defendants, including a union. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from picketing their premises and misrepresenting a lockout. Defendants, however, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to federal pre-emption. The court found that because plaintiffs are interstate carriers and the dispute involved alleged unfair labor practices without violence, the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, as established by federal statutes (29 U.S.C. §§ 158, 159) and Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Pre-emptionLabor DisputeInjunctionInterstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticesPicketingNational Labor Relations BoardFederal JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. a & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc.

The United States filed a complaint under CERCLA against A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., and Marine Midland Bank, N.A., for costs incurred to clean up toxic chemicals. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. subsequently filed a third-party claim against its insurers, including Utica Mutual Insurance Company, seeking indemnification. Utica moved to dismiss this third-party claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Finley v. United States decision. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied Utica's motion, finding that the claim fell within the court’s pendent party jurisdiction. The decision concluded that CERCLA's jurisdictional grant does not implicitly negate pendent party jurisdiction and that discretionary factors favored hearing all claims together for judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Pendent Party JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionCERCLAThird-Party ClaimIndemnificationInsurance LawFederal JurisdictionDistrict CourtRule 12(b)(1) MotionCivil Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 252 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