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

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Capital Bus. Credit LLC v. Tailgate Clothing Co., Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. M2016-01577-SC-R23-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Jason Ray v. Madison County, Tennessee

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed certified questions of law concerning split confinement sentences and the duties of sheriffs. The court concluded that Tennessee trial judges possess implicit authority to set a percentage of actual confinement for felony split confinement sentences before defendants become eligible for work credits. This authority is considered part of the broad discretion trial courts have in fashioning alternative sentences and does not conflict with existing statutes governing work credits. Additionally, the court determined that sheriffs in Tennessee have no duty to challenge an improper or potentially improper sentence, but rather are obligated to enforce court orders.

Sentencing LawSplit ConfinementWork CreditsProbation ConditionsSheriff DutiesStatutory InterpretationFelony SentencingMisdemeanor SentencingDue ProcessCriminal Procedure
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00452-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Alejandro Robles v. State

Alejandro Robles was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He appealed, raising three issues: whether his prior felony conviction from Puerto Rico could be used for punishment enhancement, whether it barred him from probation eligibility, and whether he was denied credit for time served. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, holding that Puerto Rico is considered a 'state' under Texas law for both enhancement and probation eligibility purposes. However, the court found that Robles was entitled to credit for time served between his arrest and sentencing, and therefore modified the district court's judgment to include this credit.

Aggravated assaultDeadly weaponFelony enhancementPrior convictionPuerto RicoStatutory constructionProbation eligibilityTime creditAppellate reviewTexas Penal Code
References
17
Case No. 08-17-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Jodi Strobach v. WesTex Community Credit Union

Jodi Strobach appealed a summary judgment dismissing her lawsuit against WesTex Community Credit Union. Strobach claimed breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and deceptive trade practices after WesTex released funds from her account based on a garnishment judgment against her father, not her, and without proper notice to Strobach. The appellate court agreed that a question of fact remained regarding whether WesTex breached its contractual duty of ordinary care to Strobach. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on Strobach's claims of negligence, fraud, and violations of the DTPA, citing the economic loss rule and lack of evidence for fraud.

GarnishmentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractNegligenceFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActDue ProcessNoticeVoid JudgmentOrdinary Care
References
115
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit One Financial v. Anderson (In re Anderson)

Plaintiff Orrin Anderson, a debtor, had his credit card debt with Credit One discharged in bankruptcy, but the debt remained on his credit report as 'charged off.' Anderson reopened his bankruptcy case and filed a class action complaint against Credit One for alleged violations of the discharge injunction. Credit One moved to compel arbitration, strike class allegations, and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Bankruptcy Court denied. Credit One appealed the denial to compel arbitration as of right and sought leave to appeal the denials to strike class allegations and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court denied Credit One's motion for leave to appeal, finding no basis for pendent appellate jurisdiction or interlocutory appeal for the additional issues.

Bankruptcy Discharge InjunctionClass Action WaiverSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPendent Appellate JurisdictionArbitration AgreementFederal Statutory ClaimsContempt PowerPunitive DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Driscol

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of Albert and Marianne Driscol against Allied Adjustment Bureau and Household Credit Services, Inc. for aggressive debt collection practices. The Driscols alleged various causes of action, including unreasonable debt collection, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The appellate court reformed the initial $11.7 million judgment, upholding Marianne Driscol's recovery for invasion of privacy but reversing Albert Driscol's damages due to insufficient evidence of mental anguish. The court also reduced the exemplary damages awarded against both Household and Allied.

Debt Collection PracticesInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAgency LiabilityExemplary DamagesActual DamagesMental AnguishLost WagesFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
60
Case No. 04-19-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2021

San Antonio Federal Credit Union v. Mario R. Cantu

This case involves an appeal by San Antonio Federal Credit Union (SACU) against a final judgment in favor of Mario R. Cantu, stemming from a breach of contract dispute. The core of the dispute revolved around two general services agreements (GSAs) concerning Cantu's janitorial services for SACU. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Cantu, ruling that the November GSA was the only valid and enforceable contract, and that its termination clauses required cause and specific notice periods. SACU appealed, challenging Galland's authority to execute the November GSA and the enforceability of the December GSA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Galland had apparent authority and that the December GSA was unenforceable due to indefiniteness and lack of proper execution.

Contract LawBreach of ContractApparent AuthorityContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionsMaterial BreachService AgreementTexas Appellate CourtTermination Clause
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 1,768 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