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

Gomez v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF EL PASO

Appellants Elsa Gomez and Jose Ramiro Gomez sued the Housing Authority (HACEP) and apartment manager Lupe Armstrong after their children were sexually molested at a housing project by Enrique Martinez, a non-tenant with a criminal record. They alleged HACEP's inadequate screening procedures and deliberate indifference violated their children's constitutional rights to bodily integrity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court granted HACEP's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Appellants failed to establish that Armstrong or her supervisors had final policymaking authority, identify an official municipal policy that was the 'moving force' behind the constitutional violation, or demonstrate a constitutional violation by a state actor, as the molestation was by a private individual and no special relationship imposing a duty to protect was proven.

Civil Rights Act of 187142 U.S.C. § 1983Municipal LiabilityOfficial PolicyDeliberate IndifferenceBodily IntegrityDue ProcessSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionChild Molestation
References
41
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
Case No. 1:11-CV-157
Regular Panel Decision

United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga

Plaintiff United Pet Supply, Inc., operating a pet store in Chattanooga, Tennessee, sued Defendants Animal Care Trust (a non-profit providing animal control services to the City of Chattanooga) and its employees (Karen Walsh, Paula Hurn, Marvin Nicholson, Jr.) for various constitutional and state law violations. The lawsuit stemmed from an incident in June 2010 where defendants confiscated animals, business records, and the plaintiff's city permit without a pre-deprivation hearing, alleging numerous City Code violations. Plaintiff claimed procedural due process violations, Fourth Amendment violations (unreasonable search and seizure), abuse of process, conversion, and tortious interference with business relationships and contract. The District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, the court denied the motion regarding Fourth Amendment and abuse of process claims, and denied it in part for procedural due process (regarding permit and animals but not business records) and conversion (against McKamey but not individual defendants). The court granted the motion for claims under the Tennessee Constitution and tortious interference claims, dismissing those with prejudice.

Fourth AmendmentDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessAnimal Cruelty LawsBusiness Permit RevocationSearch and SeizureQualified ImmunityAbuse of ProcessConversionTortious Interference
References
100
Case No. W2009-01520-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2010

Jacqueline Redmon v. City of Memphis

Jacqueline Redmon, a benefits specialist for the City of Memphis, was terminated after she used a city database to obtain a police officer's phone number to inquire about her husband's arrest. Both the City's Civil Service Commission and the Chancery Court upheld her termination. Redmon appealed, citing violations of constitutional provisions, unlawful procedure, arbitrary decision-making, and insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the termination, finding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial and material evidence, that the City's policies were not unconstitutionally vague, and that Redmon's due process rights were not violated by the hearing procedures or changes in the stated policy violations.

Employee TerminationPublic Employee MisconductConfidentiality ViolationDatabase Access MisuseDue Process RightsCivil Service AppealJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsEmployment LawAppellate Court DecisionPolicy Violations
References
12
Case No. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1988

Ingram v. Dallas County, Tex.

This case involves claims by Luella Ingram, a 54-year-old black female, against Dallas County, her former employer. Ingram alleged age discrimination under the ADEA, procedural and substantive due process violations, breach of employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivation of liberty interest in her reputation, following her discharge and rehire at a lower pay. The Court granted Ingram's motion for summary judgment on her procedural due process claim, finding she had a property interest in her job and was discharged without notice or a pre-termination hearing. It denied her substantive due process claim and granted the County's motion on the breach of employment contract. The Court denied the County's motion for summary judgment on Ingram's ADEA claim, finding her to be an 'employee' under the act and that she presented a prima facie case with evidence of pretext. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and deprivation of liberty interest were dismissed. Both parties' motions for sanctions were denied. The remaining issues for trial are damages for the procedural due process violation and the age discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationDue ProcessProperty InterestCivil ServiceEmployment ContractSummary JudgmentTexas LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePublic EmployeeWrongful Discharge
References
27
Case No. ADJ7469490
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

JOSEPH GUIDO vs. NATIONAL AIR, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a law firm's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award regarding attorney fees. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and unverified, violating jurisdictional deadlines and procedural rules. Even if considered timely and properly filed, the Board would have denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's reasoning. The Board also admonished the firm for procedural missteps and attached materials, reminding them of potential sanctions for rule violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAttorney FeesCompromise and ReleaseUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionJurisdictional Time LimitLabor CodeWCAB Rules
References
6
Case No. M2012-02249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2014

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Cohen v. Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Lee Cohen appealed the trial court's dismissal of their defamation lawsuit against Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian. The trial court had granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) and for discovery abuses under Rule 41.02, citing ex parte communication and subpoena violations. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by dismissing the case while a motion to amend was pending and by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal for procedural violations without sufficient explanation or consideration of lesser alternatives. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Defamation LawsuitProcedural DismissalDiscovery SanctionsEx Parte CommunicationsFailure to State a ClaimMotion to AmendAbuse of Discretion ReviewAppellate ProcedurePro Se RepresentationCivil Procedure Rules
References
29
Case No. 01-7924
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2003

Colondres v. Scoppetta

Plaintiff, Colondres, sued officials of the Administration for Children's Services and the City of New York for constitutional violations after her children were removed and she was maliciously prosecuted. She secured a $90,001.00 judgment via a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer. Subsequently, the City asserted a lien on her recovery for public assistance received, citing New York Social Services Law § 104-b. Colondres challenged the lien, arguing pre-emption by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of First Amendment access to courts, lack of due process, and conflict with Rule 68. The court denied her motion, affirming the City's right to impose the lien and finding no constitutional or procedural infringements.

Constitutional LawCivil RightsPublic Assistance LienRule 68 OfferPreemption DoctrineFirst AmendmentDue ProcessSocial Services LawFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial Jurisdiction
References
39
Case No. M2010-00237-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Christian Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education

Christian Heyne, a high school student, injured a younger student with his car on school property and was suspended for ten days for reckless endangerment. This decision was upheld through internal administrative appeals. Heyne and his parents filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court, which found procedural due process violations and overturned the suspension, awarding attorneys' fees. The Board of Education appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, finding no procedural due process violations and sufficient material evidence to support the school officials' reckless endangerment finding. Consequently, Heyne's suspension was upheld, and he was not entitled to attorneys' fees.

Student DisciplineDue ProcessReckless EndangermentSchool SuspensionCommon-law Writ of CertiorariJudicial ReviewProcedural RightsAdministrative ProceedingsSchool OfficialsBias and Prejudice
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 10,054 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