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

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Case No. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 03-14-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This is a reply brief for Graphic Packaging, Inc. in an appeal concerning the application of Texas's franchise tax. Graphic Packaging argues that it properly used the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula, contending that Texas Tax Code § 171.106(a) did not impliedly repeal the Compact's election or formula. The appellant asserts that the Compact is a valid and binding interstate agreement, not a mere uniform law, and that its mandatory election provision is unambiguous. Furthermore, Graphic Packaging argues that the Compact Election does not violate the Texas Constitution's anti-surrender tax power provision and that the franchise tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition.

Franchise TaxTax ApportionmentMultistate Tax CompactContract ClauseTaxation LawState SovereigntyStatutory InterpretationImplied RepealDue ProcessCommerce Clause
References
67
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Case No. 07-02-0169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) appealed a summary judgment that relieved the Texas Worker's Compensation Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund) of liability for workers' compensation benefits to Glenn Everett, the real party of interest. The Commission contended that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act abrogates the common law defense of election of remedies and that Everett did not make an election. Everett had previously settled a personal injury suit for $37,500 and later pursued a worker's compensation claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Act does not abrogate the election of remedies defense and that Everett made an informed choice to elect remedies by settling his claim after consulting with attorneys, thus barring his right to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesSummary JudgmentTexas Appellate CourtStatutory InterpretationCommon Law DefenseIndemnificationSettlement AgreementEmployee StatusInsurance Fund Liability
References
18
Case No. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. NO. 03-98-00566-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1999

Texas Department of Insurance Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And Texas Public Finance Authority v. American Home Assurance Company and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's judgment in a tax refund case involving workers' compensation insurance. Appellees, two insurance companies, sued the State for a partial refund of taxes paid under protest, contending that a 1993 amendment to the Texas Insurance Code, Article 5.68(b), which expanded the tax base for certain maintenance taxes, did not apply to a separate surcharge tax. The amendment explicitly stated its application to Article 5.68 and Labor Code Section 403.002, but made no mention of the surcharge statute, Article 5.76-5. The appellate court found the language clear and unambiguous, concluding that the legislature's omission of the surcharge statute was deliberate and that the expanded definition of 'gross workers' compensation insurance premiums' applied only to the specified articles. Therefore, the State's assessment of the surcharge based on modified premiums was incorrect, and the district court's order for a refund was upheld.

Workers' CompensationInsurance TaxStatutory InterpretationTax BaseDeductible PlansTexas Insurance CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGross Premiums
References
28
Case No. 03-14-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

the University of Texas System and the University of Texas at Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas And Marilyn Cameron

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas (Appellants) are appealing a trial court's decision that granted summary judgment to Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and intervenor Marilyn Cameron. The core issue revolves around an open records request for the names of human research subjects involved in a national security/terrorism study, which the University argued should remain confidential under Texas Government Code § 552.101 due to privacy concerns and academic freedom. The trial court's ruling mandated the disclosure of this information. Appellants contend that the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment lacked evidentiary support for negating confidentiality and that a more robust privacy analysis, encompassing the First Amendment right to academic freedom, is warranted. The case seeks a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a full trial on the merits with a broadened legal framework for privacy.

Academic FreedomConfidentiality of Research SubjectsPublic Information ActOpen Records RequestSummary JudgmentCommon-Law PrivacyConstitutional PrivacyHuman Research SubjectsFreedom of the PressFirst Amendment
References
21
Case No. 03-12-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2014

King Street Patriots, Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Engelbrecht and Diane Josephs v. Texas Democratic Party Gilberto Hinojosa, Successor to Boyd Richie, in His Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party And John Warren, in His Capacity as Democratic Nominee for Dallas County Clerk

This case involves an appeal of a trial court's summary judgment regarding the facial constitutionality of various Texas Election Code provisions. Appellants, King Street Patriots, Catherine Engelbrecht, Bryan Engelbrecht, and Diane Josephs, challenged provisions related to private rights of action, corporate political contributions, and definitions of political committees and contributions, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Appellees, the Texas Democratic Party and its chairmen and nominees, originally sued appellants for alleged Election Code violations concerning KSP's activities in the 2010 general election, including training poll watchers in coordination with the Texas Republican Party. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of most challenged provisions and declined jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, finding no reversible error and concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional.

Election LawCampaign FinanceConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFourth AmendmentOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineCorporate ContributionsPolitical Committees
References
87
Showing 1-10 of 10,068 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