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

Goins v. Hitchcock I.S.D.

Plaintiff Rolisha Goins filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Hitchcock Independent School District (HISD) and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on gender and race under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C § 1981, Title VII, and Title IX. Goins, a former coach, claimed HISD failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement regarding gender inequality in athletics, misrepresented her salary, and engaged in a campaign to ostracize her. She moved for the appointment of a Special Master to oversee discovery, citing lack of cooperation from HISD. Defendants filed an unopposed partial motion to dismiss all claims against the individual defendants. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a Special Master, finding it unwarranted and that Defendants had cooperated. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that official capacity claims were redundant, Title IX and Title VII do not permit individual liability, § 1981 claims lacked factual basis for racial discrimination, § 1983 claims failed to allege adverse employment action, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were preempted or lacked outrageous conduct.

Gender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissSpecial MasterTitle VIITitle IXSection 1983Section 1981Official Capacity
References
53
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Case No. 03-14-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2014

M&M Orthodontics P.A.and Harlingen Family Dentistry v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission Dr. Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commiss

Appellees, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Dr. Kyle Janek, and Administrative Law Judges Carole Hurley, Keith Grantham, and Rick Gilpin, filed an unopposed joint motion requesting a 60-day extension to file their brief in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The current deadline is December 31, 2014, and the requested extension would move it to March 2, 2015. This is their first request for an extension. The primary reason for the extension is recent developments in the underlying administrative proceedings, specifically the filing of Notices of Nonsuit against Appellants, which may render the appeal moot. Appellees anticipate filing a joint motion to dismiss in the near future and require additional time to confer with Appellants and their counsel. Additionally, counsel for both the HHSC Appellees and the ALJ Appellees cited demanding litigation schedules and upcoming holiday office closures as reasons for needing more time.

Extension of TimeMootnessNonsuitAdministrative ProceedingsAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyThird Court of AppealsTexas Health and Human Services CommissionAppellees' BriefLitigation Schedule
References
7
Case No. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. 15-0019
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2015

Alexander R. Davis and Rebecca R. Davis v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

The petitioners, Alexander R. Davis and Rebecca R. Davis, filed a second unopposed motion to extend time to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court of Texas. They are requesting an additional thirty-day extension until March 25, 2015, due to various reasons. These reasons include their co-counsel's heavy workload with prior deadlines and family activities, and the need to analyze the impact of the significant workers’ compensation case, Seabright Ins. Co. v. Lopez. Furthermore, petitioners' counsel and paralegal were incapacitated on the filing date due to an ice storm. Opposing counsel, Matthew B. Baumgartner, has indicated no opposition to this request.

Extension of TimePetition for ReviewAppellate ProcedureSupreme Court of TexasWorkers' CompensationUnopposed MotionCourt of AppealsMotion for RehearingMotion for Rehearing En BancTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,396 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