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. 03-09-00635-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

Texas Racing Commission and Charla Ann King, Executive Director v. Javier Marquez D/B/A J&M Racing and Farm

Javier Marquez's racehorses were disqualified and their race purse redistributed due to inadvertently wearing incorrect saddle cloth numbers, a violation of commission rules. Marquez appealed the stewards' decision to the Texas Racing Commission, but the executive director, Charla Ann King, denied the appeal, citing a provision of the Texas Racing Act that deemed such decisions final. Marquez then filed a suit against the Commission and King, seeking declaratory relief. The trial court denied relief under the Administrative Procedure Act but granted it under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, declaring that King exceeded her statutory authority by denying the appeal and by disqualifying the horses and redistributing the purse. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the director exceeded her authority by refusing the administrative appeal, but vacated and dismissed the trial court's rulings on the disqualification and purse redistribution, holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction until Marquez exhausted his administrative remedies. The court also affirmed a reduced award of attorney's fees.

Racing ActAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimAdministrative AppealHorse RacingDisqualificationPurse RedistributionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Racing Ass'n v. State of New York Racing & Wagering Board

The New York Racing Association (NYRA) filed a CPLR article 78 application seeking to exempt competitive bidding policy documents from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), citing Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) regarding trade secrets and potential substantial competitive injury. NYRA challenged a determination by the State of New York Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) that had partially denied this exemption for certain approved policy changes. The court, applying the Encore test, found that even a summarized release of these documents would constitute a disclosure of proprietary trade information. Such disclosure, especially to the press, was deemed likely to cause significant competitive disadvantage to NYRA, impacting its franchise renewal and bankruptcy reorganization efforts. Consequently, the court granted NYRA's application, vacating the NYSRWB's prior determination and ruling that the documents are exempt from FOIL disclosure.

FOILFreedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawTrade SecretsCompetitive BiddingProprietary InformationCommercial EnterpriseSubstantial InjuryRacing IndustryRegulatory Board
References
14
Case No. 03-03-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2004

Glen Smith v. Maximum Racing, Inc.

This appellate case concerns a dispute between Glen Smith and Maximum Racing, Inc. following the termination of an agreement to provide race cars for Smith's son. Smith refused to return a racing car, claiming Maximum Racing owed him for "compensable work" and sought a lien. Maximum Racing counterclaimed for conversion. A jury found Smith had not performed compensable work, leading the trial court to rule for Maximum Racing. On appeal, Smith challenged the waiver of the conversion claim, the finding of conversion without compensable work, and asserted a good-faith defense. The Third District Court of Appeals, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the conversion claim was not waived, the jury's finding was supported by evidence, and good faith is not a valid defense to conversion under Texas law.

ConversionProperty LawContract DisputeAppellate ProcedureJury VerdictWorker's LienGood Faith DefenseWaiver of ClaimsTexas Court of AppealsAutomotive Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. New York Racing Ass'n

An employee of Seasons Contracting Corp., acting as the plaintiff, suffered personal injuries during demolition work at Aqueduct Race Track, owned by New York Racing Association, Inc., and overseen by Tishman Construction Corporation of New York as the construction manager. The plaintiff fell eight feet while traversing a partially demolished wall and debris. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiff's motions. On appeal, the order was modified: the defendants' summary judgment motions were denied, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability was granted, and leave was granted to supplement the bill of particulars with Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e)(1) and (2). The appellate court determined that the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices, which proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that the specified Industrial Code sections were applicable.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeConstruction AccidentDemolition SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityElevation Risk
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szpilzinger v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the respondent Division of Human Rights, which found that the petitioner had discriminated against a complainant by refusing to rent an apartment due to her race. The Division of Human Rights had ordered the petitioner to pay $25,000 in compensatory damages. The court dismissed the petition and confirmed the respondent’s determination. The evidence presented supported the finding that the petitioner discriminated against the claimant on the basis of her race by informing her the apartment was unavailable, while telling other inquirers it was available. The court also declined to reduce the award for compensatory damages, finding it not shocking to the court’s sense of fairness.

discriminationrace discriminationhousing discriminationapartment rentalcompensatory damagesExecutive Lawappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceshocking to court’s sense of fairnessDivision of Human Rights
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08359 [155 AD3d 1014]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Keceli v. Yonkers Racing Corp.

The plaintiff, Suzanne Elizabeth Keceli, an openly gay woman, alleged employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and unlawful retaliation against her employer, Yonkers Racing Corporation, and individual supervisors. She claimed persistent discriminatory comments and retaliatory actions after complaining about the workplace environment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing her claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The appellate court found that the defendants had presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions, and Ms. Keceli failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext or a causal link between her protected activity and the adverse employment actions.

employment discriminationsexual orientation discriminationhostile work environmentunlawful retaliationsummary judgmentprima facie caseprotected activityadverse employment actionpretextcausal connection
References
9
Case No. 01A01-9602-CH-00073
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 1998

Devore v. Deloitte & Touche

This appeal concerns an employment discrimination action filed by Maurice DeVore against Deloitte & Touche. DeVore, a computer programmer, alleged he was terminated due to race discrimination and in retaliation for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The trial court granted summary judgment to Deloitte & Touche, determining DeVore failed to present sufficient evidence of discrimination or pretext. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that DeVore's statistical evidence and personal beliefs were insufficient to prove pretext for the employer's stated reason of inadequate job performance.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextual ReasonStatistical EvidenceJob PerformanceTraining DisparityEEOC Charge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Luis R. Alonzo filed an employment discrimination action against The Chase Manhattan Bank and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, and retaliation. Alonzo, a Hispanic employee, claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and subsequently terminated. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for race and color claims and lack of individual liability under Title VII. The court denied the motion regarding race discrimination, finding that "Hispanic" could encompass race for EEOC investigation purposes, but granted the dismissal of color discrimination claims and claims against the individual defendants, citing no personal liability under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationIndividual LiabilityJudgment on PleadingsHispanic Identity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Concha v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. JACOBS ENGINEERING, INC.

Plaintiff Kevin Howard, an African-American male, sued Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He claimed he was denied advancement and terminated without cause in March 2006. Howard asserted discriminatory failure to train, interference with transfer opportunities, and disparate treatment compared to non-African-American employees. The court found that Plaintiff presented a prima facie case for race discrimination and raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employer's inconsistent, non-discriminatory reasons for his termination. Consequently, summary judgment was denied for the race discrimination claim, allowing it to proceed to trial, but granted for the sex discrimination claim due to insufficient evidence.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981Prima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkReduction in Force
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 2,455 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