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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

Judge Edelstein was presented with two orders seeking to show cause why a Grand Jury presentment from October 1952 should not be expunged from court records. The judge declined to sign the orders, asserting that the procedure was not adversarial, as the United States Attorney is not responsible for defending a Grand Jury's presentment. Treating the orders as motions to expunge, Judge Edelstein then denied them without prejudice. He reasoned that granting the motions would require him to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a colleague's actions in the same court, which he refused to do, suggesting renewal of the motions before the original presiding judge.

Grand JuryExpungementJudicial DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionMotions PracticeCourt RecordsPresentmentDistrict Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1997

Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, Inc.

Present and former African-American and Hispanic employees and unsuccessful job applicants filed a putative class action against Kelsey-Seybold Clinic and its associated entities, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas state law. Plaintiffs sought class certification for African-American applicants and employees seeking promotions/transfers. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenthal, denied the motion for class certification. The court found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the "grounds generally applicable to the class" requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), citing the individualized nature of the discrimination claims and insufficient evidence of a company-wide discriminatory policy.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactClass CertificationRule 23NumerosityCommonality
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Bexar v. Garcia

This concurring opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that presentment is a prerequisite for filing a claim under the Anti-Retaliation Law against a county. Chief Justice Hardberger asserts that the Legislature, by enacting sections 504.002 and 451.001-003 of the Texas Labor Code, waived governmental immunity for such claims without imposing a notice requirement. He points to section 81.041 of the Local Government Code as a general authorization for suits against counties after presentment, effectively waiving immunity, but argues that the Anti-Retaliation Law itself does not include such a condition. Therefore, the opinion concludes that presentment to the Commissioner's Court is not required by the statute's clear language, and Garcia should be permitted to proceed with her counterclaim.

Anti-Retaliation LawGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityPresentment RequirementLocal Government CodeTexas Labor CodeWorkers' Compensation ClaimConcurring OpinionStatutory InterpretationCounty Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moritt v. Rockefeller

Judge Feinberg's concurring opinion agrees with Judge McLean to dismiss a complaint filed by Judge Moritt. Moritt challenged a New York state law requiring 12,000 signatures for independent nominating petitions, which he had failed to obtain. Feinberg argued that Moritt lacked standing because he did not meet this minimum requirement, a standard Moritt himself deemed reasonable. The opinion distinguished the present case from Moore v. Ogilvie and Socialist Workers Party v. Rockefeller, where plaintiffs either met signature requirements or filed suit timely. Furthermore, Feinberg concurred that federal claims related to section 131 were not substantial, advocating for declining pendent jurisdiction over state constitutional claims.

Election LawCandidate EligibilitySignature RequirementsStanding to SueConstitutional LawFederal JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionDismissal of ComplaintNew York State LawJudicial Concurrence
References
2
Case No. 2019-06-0268
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2019

Williams, Bobby v. CoreCivic

This interlocutory appeal concerns the employee’s right to have his own physician present for an examination performed by a physician selected by the employer. The employer filed a motion to compel the employee to submit to an examination by the employer’s physician pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(d)(1) (2018). The employee asserted that his statutory right to have his own physician present permitted his physician’s observing the examination via videoconference. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to compel but determined the statute contemplated only the physician’s physical presence. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the plain meaning of "present" requires physical attendance and that creating a right for remote observation falls to the legislature.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExaminationPhysician PresenceVideoconferenceStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment Rating
References
4
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. No. 10-08-00011-CV; No. 10-08-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

AHF-ARBORS at Huntsville II, LLC v. Walker County Appraisal District

This case involves appeals by AHF-Arbors at Huntsville I, LLC and AHF-Arbors at Huntsville II, LLC (collectively Arbors) from orders denying their motions for summary judgment and granting Walker County Appraisal District's no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Arbors sought an ad valorem tax exemption under subsection 11.182(b) of the Property Tax Code for two apartment complexes, asserting they qualified as charitable organizations. The Appraisal District challenged Arbors's compliance with the statutory requirements, specifically the audit requirements of subsection 11.182(g), arguing there was no evidence that Arbors delivered their audits to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Arbors failed to present evidence of full compliance with the audit delivery requirement.

Property Tax ExemptionAd Valorem TaxCharitable OrganizationCommunity Housing Development OrganizationSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionAudit RequirementsTexas Property Tax CodeAppellate ReviewTax Law
References
11
Case No. 91-1324
Regular Panel Decision

Dawes v. Leonardo

Ian Dawes, a New York State prison inmate, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Superintendent Arthur Leonardo and Hearing Officer John Patterson. Dawes alleged that a policy prohibited inmates in the Special Housing Unit from being present during the testimony of favorable witnesses at disciplinary hearings and that Patterson failed to provide written explanations for this. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing inmates have no constitutional right to be present during witness testimony. The court, citing Second Circuit precedent in Francis v. Coughlin, held that prison inmates do not possess a constitutional right to be present during such testimony. While New York State regulations might provide such a right, the court concluded that a procedural safeguard not required by the U.S. Constitution does not create a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims.

Civil RightsInmate RightsDue ProcessDisciplinary HearingsSummary JudgmentLaw of the CasePrisoner LitigationLiberty InterestConstitutional LawNew York Regulations
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York Electrical Worker' Union

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of an election held by the New York Electrical Workers' Union after a period of receivership. Petitioner Maurice B. Jarvis challenged the election, alleging that no notice was given to members about the termination of the receivership or the annual meeting, and that a quorum was not present. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the application. On appeal, the court examined the union's by-laws regarding meeting notices and quorums, noting inconsistencies and non-compliance with the Membership Corporations Law. The appellate court found that while no statute or by-law explicitly required notice for annual meetings, the context of the receivership made it advisable. Critically, the court determined that the common-law rule for voluntary associations, where any number present constitutes a quorum, did not apply to a corporation governed by statute. Given that only 20 members were present out of 1,200, no valid quorum was established under any by-law provision or the Membership Corporations Law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal, ordered the election to be set aside, and mandated a new election with proper notice to all eligible members.

Corporate Election DisputeUnion GovernanceReceivership ImpactBy-law InterpretationQuorum RequirementsNotice of MeetingsGeneral Corporation LawMembership Corporations LawAppellate ReviewCorporate Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,663 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