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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotze v. Sebelius

This case challenges the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on two grounds not addressed by a previous Supreme Court decision: violation of the Origination Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs Steven F. Hotze, M.D., and Braidwood Management, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment against Defendants Kathleen Sebelius and Jacob J. Lew. The Court found that Plaintiffs had standing and that the Anti-Injunction Act and ripeness doctrine did not preclude adjudication. On the merits, the Court rejected the Origination Clause claim, determining the ACA was not primarily a 'Bill for raising Revenue' and originated properly in the House. The Court also dismissed the Takings Clause claim, affirming that taxes, including the individual and employer mandates under the ACA, are not takings requiring just compensation, and thus granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActACAObamacareOrigination ClauseTakings ClauseFifth AmendmentArticle I, Section 7Individual MandateEmployer MandateConstitutional Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. 02-23-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Shanna C. Granger and Prost Production, LLC

Shanna C. Granger and Prost Production, LLC (Granger) sued Tarrant Regional Water District (the District) for breach of a permit and violations of the takings and due course of law clauses of the Texas Constitution. The District challenged the trial court's jurisdiction based on governmental immunity, arguing the permit was a license, not a vested property interest. The appellate court examined the agreement, titled "Permit," and found it unambiguously granted Granger a non-exclusive right of use for a limited time and purpose, characteristic of a license. Consequently, the court held that the permit did not create a vested property interest subject to the takings clause, and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Granger's claims.

Texas Appellate CourtGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionReal Property LawLicense AgreementLease AgreementContract InterpretationInverse CondemnationTakings ClauseDue Course of Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Gen Holdings, Inc. v. Governor of New York

The applicants, Empire Gen Holdings, Inc. and Empire Generating Co, LLC, initiated a declaratory judgment and injunction action challenging the constitutionality of New York Tax Law §§ 33 and 34, known as the "Tax Credit Deferral Provisions". They contended that these provisions unconstitutionally delayed their receipt of a significant brownfield redevelopment tax credit, violating their rights under the Takings Clause, Due Process, Contracts Clause, and Equal Protection. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a cause of action. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had no vested property right to the tax credit prior to the enactment of the deferral provisions, thereby defeating their Takings and Due Process claims. Furthermore, the court found no contractual impairment and determined that the tax credit classifications were rationally related to legitimate government interests, leading to the dismissal of all constitutional challenges.

Constitutional LawTax LawDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionTax CreditsBrownfield RedevelopmentTakings ClauseDue ProcessContracts ClauseEqual Protection
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shields v. Babbitt

Plaintiff Hunter Schuehle sought a declaratory judgment that the 'take' provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are unconstitutional as applied to the Edwards species, arguing that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate activity and that the Sierra Club's enforcement constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Federal Defendants and Sierra Club moved for summary judgment, contending that the Edwards species affect interstate commerce, Schuehle lacked standing, and his claims were not ripe. The Court found the case justiciable, concluding that Schuehle had standing due to economic harm from reduced pumping and that the claim was ripe despite the lack of direct enforcement action. On the merits, the Court denied Schuehle's motion and granted the defendants' motions, upholding the constitutionality of the ESA's 'take' provision under the Commerce Clause (due to potential future commerce related to genetic diversity, prevention of destructive interstate competition, tourism, and scientific research) and the Treaty Power. The Court also rejected Schuehle's claim of unconstitutional delegation regarding the ESA's citizen suit provision, stating it does not represent an unlawful delegation of rulemaking authority.

Endangered Species ActCommerce ClauseConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentEnvironmental LawWater RightsGroundwater PumpingEdwards AquiferSpecies Protection
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. State

Justice R.S. Smith dissents in part from the majority's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' takings claims, arguing that the majority's reasoning regarding Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2002 is flawed. The dissent posits that the state's requirement for Empire to allocate 95% of its assets to public uses upon conversion constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, similar to a "plan of extortion". Smith argues that the "exactions" analysis, typically applied to land-use cases, should extend to personal property. The opinion emphasizes that Empire's property is private and protected by the Takings Clauses, and its "investment-backed expectations" as a not-for-profit entity should be respected, meaning its assets should be used in a manner consistent with its original charitable purposes of providing affordable health care coverage in New York. The dissent concludes that further factual development is necessary to determine if the uses mandated by Chapter 1 for Empire's public assets are reasonably consistent with its charitable mission, especially concerning the significant portion dedicated to hospital worker recruitment and retention.

Takings ClausePrivate PropertyUnconstitutional ConditionsExactionsInvestment-Backed ExpectationsNot-For-Profit CorporationsCharitable AssetsHealth Care FundingDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,135 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