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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03828
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2023

Matter of Hoffmann v. New York State Ind. Redistricting Commission

This case concerns an appeal from a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) to fulfill its constitutional duty to prepare and submit a second redistricting plan to the Legislature. Following the 2020 federal census, the IRC failed to achieve consensus and did not submit a second plan after its initial proposals were rejected. This led to legislative action and subsequent judicial intervention in Matter of Harkenrider v Hochul, where the Court of Appeals deemed the legislative maps unconstitutional and ordered court-drawn maps for the 2022 election. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the petitioners' mandamus proceeding timely and concluded that the Harkenrider decision's remedy for the 2022 elections did not absolve the IRC of its ongoing, mandatory constitutional obligation. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's dismissal, granting the petition and directing the IRC to immediately commence its duty to create and submit a second redistricting plan.

Redistricting ProcessIndependent Redistricting CommissionConstitutional MandateCPLR Article 78 ProceedingMandamus to CompelJudicial InterventionElectoral DistrictsLegislative AuthorityBipartisan ReformGovernmental Accountability
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vera v. Richards

This case addresses a challenge to the 1991 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (HB1), specifically regarding allegations of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Plaintiffs, a group of six Texas voters, argued that various congressional districts, particularly Districts 18, 29, and 30, were drawn with irregular boundaries solely to segregate voters by race. The court found that these three districts indeed exhibited extraordinarily convoluted shapes, which were unexplainable by traditional districting principles and were primarily designed to achieve specific racial compositions for electing minority representatives. The state's arguments, including incumbent protection and Voting Rights Act compliance, were deemed insufficient to justify the racially driven boundaries or to demonstrate narrow tailoring. Consequently, the court declared Congressional Districts 18, 29, and 30 unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

RedistrictingRacial GerrymanderingVoting Rights ActEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentMajority-Minority DistrictsIncumbency ProtectionCongressional DistrictsShaw v. RenoRacial Segregation
References
34
Case No. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. 412 U.S. 755
Regular Panel Decision

Graves v. Barnes

This case, a remand from the Supreme Court following White v. Regester, addresses the constitutionality of state legislative redistricting in Texas. A three-judge court examined multi-member districts across several counties for racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, finding historical discrimination and political exclusion of minority groups. The court concluded that seven districts (Tarrant, Jefferson, McLennan, Travis, Lubbock, El Paso, and Nueces Counties) unconstitutionally minimized minority voting strength and ordered the implementation of single-member districts for the 1974 elections. Additionally, the redistricting plan for Galveston County's Districts 17 and 19 was declared an impermissible racial gerrymander.

Legislative RedistrictingMulti-member DistrictsRacial GerrymanderingVote DilutionEqual ProtectionFifteenth AmendmentMinority Voting RightsPolitical AccessRacial DiscriminationSingle-member Districts
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Del Rio

Chief Justice Phillips, joined by Justice Hankinson, dissents, arguing that the Texas Supreme Court lacks direct appeal jurisdiction in the present case. The dissent explains that the court's jurisdiction is strictly limited to appeals concerning the constitutionality of a state statute, specifically when an injunction has been granted or denied on those grounds. In this case, which involves congressional redistricting following population growth, no party is challenging or defending an injunction based on the constitutionality of a statute. The dissenting justices assert that the Legislature's failure to act on redistricting, rather than a constitutional challenge to an existing statute, means the court's direct appeal jurisdiction is not invoked. Citing various precedents on strict jurisdictional construction, the dissent concludes that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the defined limits of judicial power despite the case's statewide significance.

Direct AppealJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRedistrictingDissenting OpinionTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ProcedureInjunctionGovernment Code
References
11
Case No. docket no. 1339
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2017

Perez v. Abbott

This Amended Order addresses Plaintiffs' claims against Texas's 2011 congressional redistricting plan (Plan C185), focusing on Voting Rights Act (§ 2) and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The Court found that the configurations of districts CD23, CD27, and CD35 in South/West Texas were invalid due to intentional vote dilution and Shaw-type racial gerrymandering. In the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area, the Court also found intentional vote dilution through packing and cracking of minority voters, and a Shaw-type racial gerrymandering claim for CD26. However, claims for additional compact minority districts in DFW and Houston under § 2 results claims were denied, as were intentional vote dilution claims in the Houston area and claims from African-American Congresspersons. The decision highlights ongoing issues in balancing partisan redistricting with the protection of minority voting rights.

RedistrictingVoting Rights ActFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection ClauseVote DilutionRacial GerrymanderingShaw-type ClaimsIntentional DiscriminationCompactnessMinority Opportunity Districts
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1982

Tarrant County v. Ashmore

This case addresses whether public officers have a 'property' interest in their positions protected by constitutional guarantees against governmental takings and due process. Justices of the peace and constables in Tarrant County sued the Tarrant County Commissioners Court after their offices were abolished due to redistricting, claiming violations of procedural due process and the right to complete their terms. The trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of the officers, finding property rights and due process violations, and awarded them lost salaries. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a public office is not 'property' in the constitutional sense, but rather a public trust, and therefore, vacating offices prior to term completion under statutory authority does not constitute a 'taking' without compensation. The Court also determined that while a public officer's interest deserves due process protection, the redistricting process was a legislative act, and the public hearings provided by the Commissioners Court were adequate, not requiring a trial-type adjudication of facts.

Public OfficeProperty RightsDue ProcessRedistrictingTarrant CountyTexas ConstitutionGovernmental TakingsLegislative ActionAdjudicative FactsPublic Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Harris County

This case addresses a challenge by Plaintiffs, including individuals and the League of United Latin American Citizens, against Harris County, Texas, and its County Judge, regarding the legality of the 2011 redistricting plan, Revised Plan A-l. Plaintiffs alleged the plan diluted the voting strength of politically cohesive Latinos in Harris County Commissioner’s Precinct 2, thereby violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They further contended that the plan was developed with intentional discrimination against Hispanics and an unjustified use of racial data. The Court meticulously examined the three Gingles preconditions for a Section 2 violation—numerosity, cohesion, and racial bloc voting—along with the totality of circumstances. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to establish the first Gingles factor, specifically regarding the compactness and numerosity of a majority-minority district, which precluded a finding of vote dilution. Additionally, the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or predominant racial gerrymandering in the County's redistricting process, leading to the denial of all Plaintiffs' claims.

RedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 2Equal Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentVote DilutionRacial GerrymanderingPolitical CohesionRacial Bloc VotingHarris County
References
0
Case No. SA:11-CV-788
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2013

Davis v. Perry

Plaintiffs, including Wendy Davis and LULAC, filed motions for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs after successfully challenging Texas's Senate redistricting plan (Plan S148). They argued the plan diluted minority voting strength and lacked preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The Court initially enjoined Plan S148 and implemented an interim plan (S172), which was later adopted by the Texas Legislature. Despite the Supreme Court's *Shelby County* decision invalidating a key VRA section, the Court found plaintiffs to be 'prevailing parties' due to the significant judicially sanctioned interim relief. The Court granted the fee motions in part, adjusting the requested amounts based on the reasonableness of hours, hourly rates, and allowable expenses, while disallowing fees for unverified support staff and clerical tasks.

Attorneys' FeesRedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 5 VRASection 2 VRAFourteenth AmendmentFifteenth AmendmentInterim ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar Method
References
84
Showing 1-9 of 9 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