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

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. Nos. 2-80-127 and 2-80-129 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1985

Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated actions. No. 2-80-127 concerns civil rights counterclaims brought by Jesus Moya against seventeen growers and state officials following the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that curtailed union organizing activities of the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Moya alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. No. 2-80-129 is a class action, originally filed by TFWU and TRLA, challenging the constitutionality of several Texas picketing statutes. The court found that the growers and state officials acted under color of state law, depriving Moya of his First Amendment rights due to the unconstitutional ex parte TRO procedure and the overly broad minority picketing provisions. Moya was awarded $500 in compensatory damages. The court also declared multiple sections of the Texas picketing statutes (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154d, 5154f, and 5154g) unconstitutional. TRLA was denied standing for the constitutional challenges, but Delia Gamez Prince was granted standing. Claims for recovery against the TRO bond were denied.

Workers' RightsFirst AmendmentPicketingTemporary Restraining OrderConstitutional LawCivil Rights Act of 1871Labor DisputesOverbreadth DoctrineState StatutesJudicial Immunity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Livery Owners Coalition v. State Insurance Fund

This case addresses the constitutionality of a Workers’ Compensation Law amendment defining livery car base owners as employers of independent owner-operators for workers' compensation purposes. The Livery Owners Coalition sought an injunction against the State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board to prevent enforcement of this statute, while the defendants sought dismissal and a declaration of the statute's constitutionality. The court, deferring to the agencies' interpretation, found their stance reasonable in expanding workers' compensation coverage and ensuring operator protection. It also determined that the statute and its application have a rational basis and do not violate equal protection. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied, and the defendants' application to dismiss the complaint and declare the statute constitutional was granted.

ConstitutionalityWorkers' Compensation LawLivery IndustryIndependent ContractorsEmployer DefinitionStatutory InterpretationEqual ProtectionInjunctionRational Basis ReviewState Agencies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Live Oak Brewing Co.

The Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission appealed a trial court's judgment declaring Section 102.75(a)(7) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code unconstitutional. This statute prohibits manufacturers from accepting payment for the assignment of territorial distribution rights. Appellees, several craft breweries, argued the statute violated their economic liberty interest under the Texas Constitution's due course of law clause by restricting their ability to sell territorial rights and hindering business expansion. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the appellees failed to demonstrate the statute deprived them of occupational freedom or was unconstitutionally oppressive. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the statute, stating it operates within the legitimate framework of the state's three-tier alcoholic beverage regulatory system and is part of a broader legislative compromise.

Economic regulationDue course of lawTexas ConstitutionThree-tier systemAlcoholic beverage industryCraft beerDistribution rightsFacial challengeAs-applied challengeStatutory interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiner v. Wasson

Justice Owen dissents from the majority's decision, which he believes incorrectly applies the 'open courts' provision of the Texas Constitution to invalidate Section 10.01 of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. This statute requires medical malpractice suits on behalf of minors aged twelve or older to be filed within specific time limits, even by a parent or legal guardian. Owen argues that this requirement is a reasonable substitute for a minor's right to sue, especially when the minor and parent are aware of the injury. He further asserts that the Legislature's stated goals for the statute, addressing a medical malpractice crisis and ensuring healthcare availability, constitute a valid exercise of police power. The dissent urges a more restrained interpretation of precedent and advocates for upholding the statute in this case, where the minor and his mother had knowledge of the claim and sought legal counsel within the limitations period.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsMinors' RightsOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionLegislative PowerJudicial ReviewParental ResponsibilityLegal DisabilityConstitutional Law
References
47
Case No. 01801-9209-OT-00103
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1994

Petition of Burson

The Attorney General and the State Board of Equalization petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514, which permits non-attorney agents to represent taxpayers before boards of equalization. Petitioners argued this statute sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law, infringing upon the judiciary's inherent authority. After appointing a Special Master who found that such services did not constitute the practice of law and upheld the statute, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master's factual findings. The Court affirmed the Special Master's legal conclusions as modified, ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 does not sanction the unauthorized practice of law and is constitutional, thereby upholding the legislative act.

Unauthorized Practice of LawConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityLegislative AuthorityProperty TaxationTaxpayer RepresentationAdministrative LawNon-attorney AgentsTennessee Constitution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beacon National Insurance Co. v. Texas State Board of Insurance

Appellants, Beacon National Insurance Company and First Preferred Insurance Company, challenged the constitutionality of Texas Insurance Code Article 21.49, the "Catastrophe Property Insurance Pool Act," arguing it violated their due process and equal protection rights. They contended the Act created an unfair competitive advantage for larger insurers and forced smaller companies to concentrate policies in high-risk areas, potentially leading to uncompensated losses. The district court found the Act constitutional. However, before this appellate review, Article 21.49 was amended by the Legislature to allow premium tax credits for losses exceeding $100 million. Due to this material amendment, the appellate court determined the case was moot and reversed the district court's judgment, dismissing the cause without ruling on the constitutionality of the pre-amendment statute.

Insurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMootnessStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance RegulationProperty InsuranceCatastrophe Insurance
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,375 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