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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

Russell H. Fish, III, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Texas Legislative Service, Partnership v. Texas Legislative Service, Partnership Andrew K. Fish And John C. Fish

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

Edd Hendee, Individually and as Executive Director of C.L.O.U.T. v. David Dewhurst, Tom Craddick, State of Texas, and the Texas Legislative Budget Board

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00154 [235 AD3d 96]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Garcia v. Monadnock Constr., Inc.

This appeal addresses the retroactive application of the Justice for Injured Workers Act (JIWA), specifically Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11(2) and 118-a. Plaintiff Waldy Quinones Garcia, injured in a construction accident, had his workers' compensation claims dismissed based on collateral estoppel from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing JIWA, which bars collateral estoppel effect for Board findings, did not apply retroactively. The Appellate Division, applying four factors (remedial nature, legislative urgency, correction of unintended judicial interpretation, reaffirmation of legislative judgment), concluded that JIWA indeed applies retroactively. Consequently, the Court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer and for partial summary judgment.

RetroactivityJustice for Injured Workers ActJIWACollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardSummary JudgmentLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
11
Case No. 03-04-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2006

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Texas Department of Insurance and Jose Montemayor, as Commissioner of Insurance Amber, Inc., Champagne-Webber, Inc. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. And Royal Seating Corp.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliates appealed a district court judgment requiring them to issue rebates to workers' compensation policyholders for 1991 and 1992 surpluses. The appellants argued that a rule from the Texas Department of Insurance, which mandated these pass-throughs, unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights, deprived them of property without due process, and constituted an impermissible retroactive law. The appeals court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the Department's rule was a valid exercise of legislative power, served a legitimate public purpose by preventing insurers from retaining unforeseen windfalls, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions regarding retroactive legislation, contract impairment, or due process rights.

Insurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective Rating PlanInsurance RegulationConstitutional ChallengesContractual ObligationsDue ProcessRetroactive LegislationAppellate Court DecisionTexas Department of Insurance
References
35
Case No. 962 S.W.2d 483
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1998

City of Tyler v. Likes

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a case where Adeline Likes sued the City of Tyler for negligent maintenance and operation of storm sewers that caused flooding in April 1986. The majority held that the City of Tyler was entitled to sovereign immunity based on a 1987 legislative act reclassifying storm sewer operations as a governmental function. Justice Spector dissented, arguing that the retroactive application of this 1987 legislation violates Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits retroactive laws that impair vested rights. The dissent contends that Likes's cause of action vested in 1986 under existing common law, and the 1987 amendment unconstitutionally deprived her of this vested right without a reasonable time to assert her claims.

Sovereign ImmunityRetroactive LawTexas ConstitutionVested RightsTort Claims ActGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionStorm SewersNegligenceDue Process
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, initiated an action seeking a declaration that sections 213 and 213-a of the New York State Insurance Law prohibited the retroactive payment of a wage increase. This increase of $2.85 per week was awarded by the National War Labor Board to its insurance agents, dating back to the start of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff argued these statutes, designed to prevent excessive post-facto compensation, made such retroactive payments unlawful. However, the trial court and Appellate Division, whose decision was affirmed, concluded that the statutes were not intended to interfere with the common practice of collective bargaining and arbitration, which frequently involves retroactive wage adjustments. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the insurance laws was to curb abuses like bonuses and gratuities, not to hinder ordinary and orderly wage-fixing mechanisms, thereby affirming the legality of the retroactive wage increase.

Insurance RegulationRetroactive CompensationCollective Bargaining DisputesWage Arbitration AwardNew York Insurance LawLabor Relations BoardStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court RulingEmployee Benefits LitigationContractual Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centerpoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission

This opinion addresses an appeal brought by CenterPoint Energy Entex concerning the Texas Railroad Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews of gas charges passed through a purchased gas adjustment (PGA) clause and to order refunds. Entex also challenged whether such a review constitutes a 'ratemaking proceeding,' which would entitle the City of Tyler to expense reimbursement. The court affirmed the Commission's authority to conduct retroactive prudence reviews and order refunds, concluding it does not violate the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking. However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding expense reimbursement, ruling that a prudence review is not a 'ratemaking proceeding' for the purpose of municipal expense recovery.

Utility RegulationGas UtilityPurchased Gas Adjustment ClausePGA ClauseRetroactive Prudence ReviewRatemaking ProceedingExpense ReimbursementTexas Railroad CommissionFiled Rate DoctrineRetroactive Ratemaking
References
69
Case No. 96
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2017

American Economy Insurance Company v. State of New York

The New York Court of Appeals examined the constitutionality of a 2013 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which closed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to new applications. Plaintiff insurance companies argued this imposed unfunded liabilities for policies finalized before the amendment, violating constitutional clauses. The Appellate Division had found the amendment unconstitutional as retroactively applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that even assuming a retroactive impact, it was constitutionally permissible under the Contract, Takings, and Due Process Clauses. The court found the amendment did not impair contracts, identify a vested property interest, or violate due process, as its retroactive application served a rational legislative purpose to benefit New York businesses.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawRetroactive LegislationContract ClauseTakings ClauseDue ProcessSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesConstitutional LawLegislative AmendmentPolicy Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Walter

The court addresses whether sections 2-9 of the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635) should be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of their enactment. The plaintiff, Raymond Morales, sustained injuries while employed by The Ullman Company, Inc. and sued Vanderbilt Associates, from whom Ullman leased premises. Vanderbilt then commenced a third-party action against Ullman for contribution and/or indemnification. Ullman moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as it had obtained liability insurance for both itself and Vanderbilt. The Act amended Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 to generally eliminate an employer’s liability for contribution to third parties, except in cases of 'grave injury.' The court concluded that the relevant sections of the Act should not be applied retroactively, citing the presumption of prospective application and the absence of clear legislative intent for retroactivity. Additionally, Ullman failed to demonstrate that the personal injury claim was a risk covered by an 'insured contract' exception in the policy. Therefore, the Supreme Court's denial of Ullman's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ReformStatutory RetroactivityThird-Party ContributionEmployer IndemnificationAntisubrogation RuleInsurance Policy Interpretation"Effective Immediately" ClauseLegislative IntentSubstantive RightsProspective Application
References
39
Case No. 889 F. Supp. 98
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1995

Haley v. Pataki

Legislative employees of New York State sought a preliminary injunction to compel payment of their bi-weekly salaries, which were withheld by Governor Pataki after March 31, 1995, amidst a state budget dispute. They alleged violations of the Contract Clause, Equal Protection, Due Process, and separation of powers. The court dismissed the State of New York as a defendant due to Eleventh Amendment immunity but proceeded against Governor Pataki. Finding irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the Contract Clause claim, the court issued a mandatory preliminary injunction. This order requires the Governor, when seeking future appropriations for state workers, not to exclude legislative employees and to allocate funds for their payment.

Preliminary InjunctionContract ClauseEleventh AmendmentState EmployeesWage DisputeSeparation of PowersDue ProcessEqual ProtectionNew York StateGovernor's Powers
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,017 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