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. Christian

District Judge Vitaliano denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial from defendants Harvey Christian, Anthony Christian, and Jason Quinn, who were convicted of racketeering, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. The defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly concerning enterprise membership and individual involvement, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence supported the "Park Hill Enterprise" and the defendants' participation in racketeering acts. It also rejected claims of prosecutorial impropriety and denied a request for a Kastigar hearing, concluding no new trial was warranted.

RacketeeringDrug TraffickingFirearms OffensesMurder in Aid of RacketeeringConspiracyJudgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionRule 29Rule 33Sufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.

Bituminous Casualty Corporation initiated a declaratory judgment suit against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, the City of Kingsport, and James Christian to ascertain which insurer was liable for a workers' compensation judgment awarded to Christian. The core of the dispute revolved around the specific date of Christian's injury, with two potential dates falling under different insurance coverage periods. The trial court initially assigned liability to United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, finding Christian's disability resulted from an injury on February 8, 1960. However, on appeal, this Court reversed that decision. The appellate court determined that the issue of Christian's injury date had already been conclusively litigated in a prior workers' compensation suit, making the plea of res judicata applicable, and also concluded that the evidence pointed to the earlier injury date of September 28, 1959. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was dismissed, with all appeal costs charged to Bituminous Casualty Corporation.

Res JudicataWorkers' CompensationInsurance LiabilityDeclaratory ReliefInjury Date DeterminationAppellate CourtBurden of ProofEstoppel by JudgmentTennessee LawPrior Adjudication
References
4
Case No. 04-23-01096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2025

Patricia Y. Mayers v. United Independent School District

Patricia Mayers, a teacher, sued United Independent School District (UISD) alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code and Title VII. The trial court granted summary judgment for UISD, which Mayers appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Mayers failed to present sufficient evidence of an adverse employment action, a comparator, or pretext to overcome summary judgment on her discrimination claim. It also found insufficient evidence for a materially adverse action or causation for her retaliation claim, and no evidence of pretext for the employer's actions.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActTexas Labor CodeAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseBurden ShiftingMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Independent School District v. Gonzalez

Andres G. Gonzalez was expelled from United High School for assaulting a teacher, a decision upheld by the school board. He appealed to the district court, which voided the expulsion and awarded attorney's fees. United Independent School District appealed this decision. The appellate court addressed whether the trial court applied the correct standard of review (pure de novo vs. substantial evidence de novo) and whether there was sufficient evidence for findings of wrongful expulsion, due course of law violations, or Open Meetings Act violations. The appellate court sided with the school district, concluding the substantial evidence standard applied, no fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion by the school board, and no due course of law or Open Meetings Act violations occurred. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed.

ExpulsionStudent DisciplineDue ProcessTexas Education CodeOpen Meetings ActStandard of ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTrial de novoSchool BoardStudent Rights
References
29
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mount Sinai Union Free School District v. Board of Education Port Jefferson Public Schools

Mount Sinai and Port Jefferson School Districts had a long-standing contract for Mt. Sinai to send its high school students to Port Jefferson. Following a deterioration of relations and an increase in Mt. Sinai's student population, Mt. Sinai decided to build its own high school. New York Education Law § 3014-c was enacted, requiring sending districts to consider teachers from receiving districts as their own employees. Mt. Sinai challenged this statute, alleging various constitutional violations. The court dismissed claims by teacher, parent/student, and taxpayer plaintiffs for lack of standing, and then dismissed the remaining Contract Clause claim by Mt. Sinai, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

School DistrictsTeacher TenureEducation LawContract ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStandingAbstention DoctrineSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. 2-08-266-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2009

Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friend for Sally Doe, a Minor v. Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. and Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund

Appellant Jane Doe, individually and as next friend for her daughter Sally Doe, a minor, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment motions of appellees Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. (TASB, Inc.) and Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (TASB RMF). The case originated from sexual assaults committed by a school bus driver, John Paul Emenhiser, against Sally Doe. Appellant later sued appellees seeking a declaration that Emenhiser was an insured under their coverage to the Denton Independent School District (DISD), which would obligate appellees to satisfy a $5,000,000 judgment appellant obtained against Emenhiser. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that an indemnity clause in a prior settlement agreement between appellant and DISD precluded appellees' responsibility to pay the judgment, thereby rendering the coverage issue moot.

Sexual MisconductSummary JudgmentIndemnity AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryContract InterpretationMinor's RightsQuasi-EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCoverage DisputeSchool Liability
References
39
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Case No. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,789 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