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

Utility Workers Union v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) challenged Section 606 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which mandates fingerprint checks for unescorted access to nuclear facilities. The UWUA sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) implementing regulation. The court dismissed the challenge to the NRC regulation due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling it a final order reviewable only by the Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, and the action was untimely. Addressing the constitutional challenge to the statute, the court found that the fingerprinting requirement did not violate Fourth Amendment or privacy rights, deeming the intrusion minimal and rationally related to national security. Consequently, the plaintiff's motions were denied, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Constitutional LawFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsFingerprintingNuclear SecurityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJurisdictionAtomic Energy ActHobbs Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which affirmed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' finding of child neglect against him. This finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, effectively prohibiting his future employment with children. Carrizales initially sought judicial review in the district court, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the basis for his appeal, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Carrizales introduced an argument for an inherent right to judicial review, claiming his constitutional liberty interest in employment was violated. However, the appellate court ruled that this constitutional argument was not preserved in the district court and therefore could not be considered on appeal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carrizales's petition.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeChild NeglectTexas Family CodeAdministrative Procedure ActSubject-Matter JurisdictionLiberty InterestConstitutional ClaimWaiver of IssueAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 03-01-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Izzat Davis v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

Appellant Izzat Davis appeals the order terminating her parental rights to her two children, T.J. and A.D. The children were removed from her care after T.J. suffered fourteen brand-like burns for which appellant did not seek timely medical attention. The jury found that parental rights should be terminated, citing appellant's endangerment of the children's well-being and finding termination to be in their best interest. Appellant challenged the evidentiary sufficiency, the admission of evidence regarding her prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter of another child, and constitutional violations. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectEvidentiary SufficiencyConstitutional RightsPrior ConvictionMedical NegligenceFoster CareBest Interest of ChildTexas Family Code
References
11
Case No. 03-99-00422-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1999

Armando Carrizales v. Texas Department of Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales sought judicial review of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order upholding a finding by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he neglected a child. The finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, potentially barring his future employment with children. In the district court, Carrizales argued for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which was denied. On appeal, Carrizales asserted an inherent right to judicial review based on a constitutionally protected liberty interest, but the Court of Appeals held that he failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActChild NeglectLiberty InterestDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionWaiverPreservation of ErrorCentral Registry
References
15
Case No. 01-00-01245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Department of Protection and Regulatory Services v. Schutz, Ann Jeanette

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment. AnnJeanette and Mark Schutz sought a declaration that the definition of "neglect" in the Family Code was unconstitutionally vague as applied to AnnJeanette, and that she was not guilty of neglect after a foster child drowned in their pool. The district court ruled in their favor, but the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Schutzes failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing judicial review. The court also clarified the distinction between "foster home" and "agency foster home" under the Human Resources Code.

child neglectfoster caredeclaratory judgmentsubject-matter jurisdictionadministrative remediesexhaustion doctrinesovereign immunitystatutory constructiondue processTexas Family Code
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brodsky v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

This case involves Plaintiffs (Richard L. Brodsky, Westchester’s Citizens’ Awareness Network, Public Health and Sustainable Energy, and Sierra Club-Atlantic Chapter) challenging the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) decision to grant an exemption to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., regarding fire protection requirements at the Indian Point Energy Center. Plaintiffs alleged that the NRC acted unlawfully by granting this exemption, arguing it lacked authority, failed to hold public hearings, and did not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The court, treating the NRC’s motion as one for summary judgment, examined whether the NRC’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Ultimately, the court deferred to the NRC’s expertise, finding that the Commission had the authority to grant exemptions, was not required to hold public hearings for exemptions, and adequately conducted an Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAtomic Energy ActFire Protection ProgramExemption ChallengeIndian Point Energy CenterNuclear SafetyAdministrative Procedure ActNational Environmental Policy ActSummary JudgmentJudicial Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of R.V.

Roger and Karia Vowell appealed the termination of their parental rights to their sons, R.V. and C.V., initiated by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS). The original termination was based on findings of sexual abuse by both parents and physical abuse by Karia. Roger challenged the trial court's rulings on his Fifth Amendment rights, the admission of old conviction evidence, and the remote televised testimony of R.V. Karia contested the admission of her written statement, the admissibility of R.V.'s testimony, and the therapist's testimony. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the appellants' points.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseSexual AbuseFifth AmendmentEvidentiary RulesRemote TestimonyAppellate ProcedureTexas Family LawChild Protective ServicesCivil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 03-01-00038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Virginia Trevino and Juan Trevino v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for Juan and Virginia Trevino to their four children. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) intervened after one child, C.A.T., suffered a skull fracture, and previous abuse of another child, D.T., by Juan was documented. The appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence, constitutional validity of Texas Family Code sections, the guardian ad litem's testimony, and denial of mistrial motions. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) or (E) and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectSkull FractureFamily LawSufficiency of EvidenceEqual Protection ChallengeGuardian Ad LitemMotion for MistrialTexas Family Code
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 5,401 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