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

Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado

This interlocutory appeal concerned a media defendant's (Freedom Communications, Inc.) motion for summary judgment in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Coronado) alleged that Freedom published a political advertisement falsely accusing them of child abuse. The trial court judge, Abel Limas, denied Freedom's motion. Subsequently, Limas pleaded guilty to federal racketeering, admitting he accepted a bribe for his ruling in this case, making him constitutionally disqualified. Due to the judge's disqualification, his order was void, thus depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction to address the merits. The court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial DisqualificationJudicial CorruptionVoid OrderSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionBriberyRacketeeringDefamationInvasion of Privacy
References
22
Case No. 03-02-00652-CV; 03-02-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

in Re Marble Falls Independent School District

This case concerns a challenge to the Marble Falls Independent School District's mandatory extracurricular activity drug-testing policy. Eddie Shell, on behalf of his minor children, argued the policy infringed upon their religious freedom, privacy rights, and due process under the Texas Constitution, citing the consumption of wine for religious observances. The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction against the school district. However, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reversed this decision, finding that Shell failed to establish a probable right to recover. The appellate court concluded that the drug-testing policy did not violate constitutional provisions regarding religious freedom, due process, or privacy, as it was a neutral, generally applicable law rationally related to legitimate state interests in student safety and health.

Drug TestingExtracurricular ActivitiesReligious FreedomPrivacy RightsDue ProcessTexas ConstitutionTemporary InjunctionAbuse of DiscretionSchool PolicyAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geltzer v. Crossroads Tabernacle (In Re Rivera)

Robert L. Geltzer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the debtors Benjamin and Antoinette Rivera, initiated an adversary proceeding to recover $5,279.30 transferred to Crossroads Tabernacle as fraudulent under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a)(2). The Church sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the contributions were religious tithes and their recovery would infringe upon the Debtors' First Amendment rights and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court denied the Church's motion, concluding that the Trustee had presented a valid claim. It ruled that the fraudulent transfer provisions apply neutrally to all gifts, regardless of religious motivation, and their application does not violate the First Amendment, especially since RFRA was later deemed unconstitutional. The decision emphasized the legal principle that an insolvent debtor must satisfy creditors before making gifts.

BankruptcyFraudulent TransferReligious ContributionsTithesFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseInsolvencyChapter 7Debtor's EstateCreditors
References
27
Case No. 13-CV-1459, 13-cv-0303
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses challenges brought by six New York-area Roman Catholic affiliated organizations against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate. Plaintiffs argued the mandate, even with accommodations, substantially burdened their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court distinguished between "Diocesan plaintiffs" (exempt) and "non-Diocesan plaintiffs" (non-exempt). Summary judgment was granted for the non-Diocesan plaintiffs on their RFRA claims, finding a substantial burden and that the government failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest. Conversely, summary judgment was granted for the defendants against the Diocesan plaintiffs, as their exempt status meant no substantial burden on their religious exercise. An injunction was issued against enforcing the mandate on non-Diocesan plaintiffs.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActACA Contraception MandateReligious Non-ProfitsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseSummary JudgmentInjunctionHealth Care LawConstitutional ChallengeReligious Exemptions
References
60
Case No. No. 15-CV-1046
Regular Panel Decision

Zhang Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance

This memorandum and order addresses the constitutionality of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACEA) regarding its protection of places of religious worship, specifically in the context of a dispute between Falun Gong adherents and the Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance in Queens, New York. The defendants moved to declare FACEA unconstitutional, arguing that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. The court acknowledges initial doubts but ultimately finds FACEA to be a constitutional exercise of congressional power, asserting that religious activity constitutes an economic class of activity. The decision emphasizes the substantial economic contribution of religious organizations and the potential impact of violence on interstate commerce. Consequently, the court denies the defendants' motion and certifies the constitutional question and the scope of FACEA for an interlocutory appeal, citing the complexity and resource demands of an impending two-month jury trial.

Commerce ClauseFirst AmendmentFACEAReligious LibertyConstitutional LawStatutory InterpretationFalun GongChinese Anti-Cult World AllianceFederal JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Winddancer

The court denied defendant Ed Winddancer's motion to dismiss the indictment, which charged him with possessing and bartering eagle and migratory bird feathers in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Winddancer, claiming Native American ancestry but not affiliation with a federally recognized tribe, argued these statutes substantially burdened his religious practices under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court determined he lacked standing to challenge the MBTA due to failure to apply for a permit. While he had standing to challenge the BGEPA, the court found he failed to demonstrate a sincere religious belief and that the government's regulations were the least restrictive means to serve compelling interests in wildlife preservation and tribal cultural protection. Additionally, his challenges to the definitions of 'bartering' and 'possession' under the MBTA, and his 'outrageous government conduct' defense, were rejected.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActBald and Golden Eagle Protection ActMigratory Bird Treaty ActNative American Religious PracticesEagle FeathersMigratory Bird FeathersMotion to Dismiss IndictmentCriminal Procedure Rule 12(b)Standing to Challenge RegulationsFacial Challenge
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1995

Helbrans v. Coombe

Plaintiff Shlomo Helbrans, an Orthodox Hasidic Jew, sought injunctive relief against the State to prevent the removal of his facial hair upon incarceration, citing his religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The parties settled, agreeing that Helbrans' beard would not be removed and he would not face disciplinary action for refusing to shave. Helbrans subsequently moved for attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. The court granted his motion, affirming his status as a prevailing party, but substantially reduced the requested fees, citing excessive hours, staffing inefficiencies, and high hourly rates, ultimately awarding $55,540.36.

Civil RightsAttorneys' FeesReligious Freedom Restoration ActInmate RightsPrisoner RightsInjunctive ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodQualified Immunity DefenseSettlement Agreement
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. Waite

Justice Frost writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding Mr. Waite's challenges to the Texas no-fault divorce statute. She concurs with the court's decision on attorney's fees and most constitutional challenges, but dissents from the court's rejection of Mr. Waite's challenge under Article I, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution, which guarantees 'rights of conscience.' Justice Frost argues that the no-fault divorce statute impermissibly interferes with religious freedom by requiring courts to evaluate the 'legitimate ends of the marital relationship,' an inquiry that she contends is inherently religious for many and thus outside the proper jurisdiction of civil courts. She advocates for applying a 'strict scrutiny' test, finding no compelling state interest to justify this intrusion and noting the availability of less restrictive alternatives for no-fault divorce.

Texas ConstitutionReligious FreedomRights of ConscienceNo-Fault DivorceMarital RelationshipJudicial InquiryStrict ScrutinyArticle I Section 6Texas Family Code Section 6.001Appellate Law
References
79
Showing 1-10 of 235 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