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. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR, 03-05-00596-CR, 03-05-00597-CR, 03-05-00598-CR, 03-05-00599-CR, 03-05-00600-CR, 03-05-00601-CR, 03-05-00602-CR, 03-05-00603-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte Ellis

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro sought the dismissal of indictments accusing them of accepting unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the election code provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the money laundering statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the orders of the district court, holding that the election code's prohibitions on corporate political contributions are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the pre-2005 version of the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as it did not include checks.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineCampaign FinanceMoney LaunderingElection LawFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsStatutory InterpretationCriminal Indictments
References
83
Case No. 03-05-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

Mike Geeslin, Commissioner of Insurance, and Texas Department of Insurance v. State Farm Lloyds

This appeal concerns the validity of a rate order issued by the commissioner of insurance, requiring State Farm Lloyds to reduce its homeowners insurance rates. The district court vacated the order, finding the underlying statute unconstitutional and State Farm Lloyds's due process rights violated. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the "proof provision" of article 5.26-1, section 4, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and that State Farm Lloyds's due process rights were violated due to the unconstitutional proof requirement and denial of discovery. The court, however, found the unconstitutional provision severable, reversed the trial court's judgment as to the constitutionality of the remainder of the statute, and remanded the case to the Texas Department of Insurance for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, ensuring a fair and reasonable return standard.

Insurance RatesHomeowners InsuranceTexas Department of InsuranceRate RegulationConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeverabilityAdministrative LawConfiscatory RatesReasonable Profit
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Geeslin v. State Farm Lloyds

This case addresses the validity of a rate order issued by the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, which mandated State Farm Lloyds to reduce its homeowners insurance rates. State Farm Lloyds challenged the order in district court, which found the underlying statute (Article 5.26-1 of the insurance code) unconstitutional and State Farm Lloyds's due process rights violated, vacating the rate order. On appeal, the Court affirmed the district court's finding that a specific "proof provision" within Article 5.26-1, requiring insurers to prove a rate reduction would lead to inadequate rates, was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to State Farm Lloyds. The Court also found that State Farm Lloyds's due process rights were violated due to the application of this unconstitutional standard and the denial of discovery. The Court held this unconstitutional provision was severable, reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the constitutionality of the remainder of the statute, and remanded the case to the Texas Department of Insurance for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, applying the constitutional standard for rate review.

Insurance Rate RegulationConstitutional LawDue ProcessSeverability of StatutesAdministrative LawInsurance CodeHomeowners InsuranceConfiscatory RatesJudicial ReviewTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 03-05-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

Alonzo Moses Botello v. State

This appeal concerns the validity of a rate order from the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, requiring State Farm Lloyds to reduce its homeowners insurance rates. The district court vacated the order, citing the unconstitutionality of Article 5.26-1 of the insurance code and due process violations. The appellate court affirmed that the 'proof provision' of Article 5.26-1, requiring an insurer to prove inadequate rates, is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied, and that State Farm Lloyds's due process rights were violated due to the application of this provision and denial of discovery. The court severed the unconstitutional part, reversed the judgment on the rest of the statute, and remanded the case to the department for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Insurance ratesHomeowners insuranceTexas insurance codeDue process rightsConstitutional challengeStatutory severabilityAdministrative procedureRate regulationJudicial reviewConfiscatory rates
References
51
Case No. E2012-02664-COA-R9-CV-FILED-JANUARY 16, 2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Lisa Womble v. University Health System, Inc. d/b/a University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center

This case originated from an employment action filed by Lisa Womble, a nurse, after her termination from the University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center, which was operated by University Health System, Inc. (UHS), a private nonprofit corporation. Womble, classified as a 'leased' employee, retained certain university benefits. The trial court sua sponte ruled Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-9-112(a), the statute governing leased employees, unconstitutional, prompting an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court examined whether the statute constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or an unconstitutional lending of the State's credit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination, affirming the constitutionality of the statute and remanding the case for further proceedings.

employment lawconstitutional lawstate employeesleased employeeslegislative delegationlending of state creditpublic purposedue processadministrative procedureswrongful termination
References
26
Case No. CA No. 79-73-CA
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. State of Tex.

This civil action evaluates the constitutionality of two sections of the Texas mass picketing statute (Article 5154d, § 1, paragraph 1, and § 2) under the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, John Nash and Local 746 of the United Rubber Workers, challenged the statute's enforcement during a 1979 strike at Buddy Schoellkopf, Inc., which led to numerous arrests for 'unlawful picketing'. The court ruled that the case was not moot, applying the 'capable of repetition, yet evades review' exception, citing the statute's chilling effect on future labor disputes. Upon review, the court determined that both the 'numbers-distance provision' and the 'intimidating language section' of the statute are unconstitutionally overbroad. Additionally, the intimidating language section was found to be unconstitutionally vague, leading to the declaration of both sections as unconstitutional.

Labour LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPicketingMass PicketingOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineConstitutional LawCivil RightsDeclaratory Judgment
References
103
Case No. 22 S.W.3d 870
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin

This dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Abbott, Hecht, and Owen, argues against the Court's majority decision that Section 26.179 of the Texas Water Code unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to private landowners. The justices assert that the Legislature holds the prerogative to limit regulatory authority previously granted to local governments, and that Section 26.179 represents a valid exercise of this power to foster economic development while ensuring water quality. They contend that the statute establishes clear water-quality standards with comprehensive TNRCC oversight, thus avoiding unconstitutional delegation. The dissent also rejects arguments that Section 26.179 is an unconstitutional local or special law, or a retroactive law, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and private property rights in the state's regulatory framework.

Constitutional LawDelegation of PowerLegislative AuthorityPrivate Property RightsWater Quality RegulationExtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)Texas Water CodeStatutory InterpretationLocal Government PowerJudicial Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of C.M.D.

LDS Family Services, a private adoption agency, appealed a trial court's sua sponte ruling that Texas Family Code section 161.002(b) is unconstitutional. This section allows for termination of parental rights without notice if an alleged father does not register with the paternity registry or take other steps to protect his rights. The case involved C.M.D., whose mother sought adoption and provided an affidavit indicating the father had not shown interest or support. The trial court deemed the statute unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the trial court's determination of unconstitutionality was not supported by the evidence, as no actual injury was shown to the unnamed father in this specific case, and an absence of evidence cannot overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

Adoption LawParental Rights TerminationPaternity RegistryConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeUnwed Fathers
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 (2011) of the Town of New Paltz, aimed at protecting wetlands and watercourses, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and unconstitutional vagueness. The Supreme Court initially annulled the local law and negative declaration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board had fulfilled its SEQRA obligations by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns and issuing a reasoned negative declaration. The court also found the 2011 law not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice to property owners. Additionally, the court rejected claims regarding unconstitutional conservation fees, preemption by state laws, and minor procedural irregularities, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 5 (2011).

Environmental LawSEQRALocal Government LawWetlands ProtectionDeclaratory Judgment ActionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstitutional ChallengeVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingsLand Use Regulation
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 546 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