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

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen

Justice Hecht concurs in part and dissents in part from the Court's judgment, finding the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation Act unconstitutional due to an unprecedented delegation of legislative power to a private, largely unelected, and unsupervised nonprofit corporation. He argues that the Foundation wields excessive authority, including the power to impose and enforce assessments and destroy crops, without adequate guidelines or public oversight. The opinion asserts that the Act also violates procedural due process by not providing sufficient opportunity for protest or hearing before enforcement actions, such as crop destruction. Additionally, Justice Hecht agrees that the assessments under the Act constitute an unconstitutional occupation tax on cotton growers. He highlights the Foundation's unique and anomalous structure within Texas government compared to similar programs in other states, reinforcing the clear unconstitutionality of the delegation.

Constitutional LawDelegation of Legislative PowerPrivate EntitiesBoll Weevil EradicationTexas ConstitutionDue ProcessRegulatory FeesOccupation TaxAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rokus v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Vincent Rokus, an author of a copyrighted musical recording, sued American Broadcasting Company, Inc. (ABC) after ABC refused to broadcast his television commercial. Rokus sought an order directing ABC to broadcast the commercial without deletions and sought compensatory and punitive damages, asserting federal claims under the Copyright Act of 1976, Title Fifteen of the United States Code, the First Amendment, and the Communications Act of 1934, along with state law claims. The District Court, presided by Judge Edward Weinfeld, granted ABC's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court found that Rokus failed to state a valid claim under the Copyright Act as ABC did not copy or use his work, and no threatened infringement was alleged. Claims under Title Fifteen (federal trade laws) were dismissed because only the Federal Trade Commission can enforce them, and Rokus failed to identify a private right of action. First Amendment claims were dismissed as ABC's actions were not governmental. Lastly, claims under the Communications Act were dismissed as it does not provide a private right of action for enforcement or a private right of access to broadcast media. Consequently, state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Copyright InfringementFreedom of SpeechFederal Communications ActPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Commercial AdvertisingBroadcast Media RegulationState Action DoctrineSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garcia

The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a direct appeal from a district court judgment that declared the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act unconstitutional. The appellants were the Texas Workers Compensation Commission and its executive director. The appellees, who were the original plaintiffs, had orally withdrawn their injunctive claims against the Commission and its director during the trial. The Supreme Court found it lacked direct appeal jurisdiction, noting that the district court's general denial of injunctive relief against the private employer (another original defendant) was not clearly based on the statute's constitutionality, and the private employer had not appealed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the simple granting of declaratory relief against a state agency is insufficient to invoke direct appeal jurisdiction.

Constitutional LawWorkers' CompensationAppellate JurisdictionDirect AppealInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtJudicial ProcedureState Constitution
References
4
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2003

George v. Bloomberg

This case concerns an article 78 proceeding initiated by labor unions against the City of New York. The unions sought to enjoin the City from using federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) monies to supplant, rather than supplement, existing child care funding, alleging violations of federal and state statutes. The lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that the CCDBG Act does not allow for a private right of action. The appellate court affirmed this decision, referencing Gonzaga Univ. v Doe and concluding that the CCDBG Act's established administrative enforcement scheme precludes private litigation. The court found no legislative intent to grant a private right of action for enforcing the CCDBG Act.

Child Care FundingFederal GrantsArticle 78 ProceedingPrivate Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationCCDBG ActLabor UnionsGovernment FundingAdministrative EnforcementNYCRR
References
4
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,159 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