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. 01-16-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Adan G. Adame v. Glendale Optical

The case involves 106 sandblasters appealing the dismissal of their silica exposure claims. In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, creating a Silica multidistrict litigation (MDL) pretrial docket, establishing procedures for claims to advance to trial upon submission of compliant medical reports. The statute was amended in 2013 to allow dismissal without prejudice of pre-2005 claims if claimants failed to file qualifying medical reports by a specified deadline. The sandblasters filed their medical reports in 2013, but many were prepared before the 2005 statute specifying report content. The MDL Court sustained objections to almost all medical reports, dismissing all 106 claims without prejudice to refiling. The sandblasters appealed, arguing Chapter 90 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and retroactive application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, overruling the sandblasters' constitutional challenges. It found that the statute's reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for impairment determination was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the requirements for detailed medical and occupational histories. The court also rejected the argument that not specifying the AMA Guides edition caused vagueness, noting the MDL Court had clarified the applicable edition. The court further dismissed the challenge regarding specific x-ray findings for lung abnormalities, pointing to a 'safety valve' provision for atypical cases. Finally, the court held that granting the MDL Court authority to evaluate medical report sufficiency does not render the statute vague, aligning with established judicial roles in assessing expert evidence. The court concluded that the 2013 amendment adding dismissal procedures was not an unconstitutional retroactive law, as claimants had no vested right to indefinite litigation without providing reliable medical evidence.

Silica ExposureMultidistrict LitigationConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness ChallengeRetroactive LawMedical ReportsImpairment RatingOccupational DiseasePulmonary Impairment
References
32
Case No. 06-09-00200-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2010

Mary C. Walker v. Dr. Charles N. Thornton, Collom and Carney Clinic Association Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston, Texas, D/B/A St. Michael Health Care Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas

Daniel Dongrele Lindley appealed the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision for two cases of attempted capital murder. He challenged the trial court's judgment, arguing the State's failure to provide written consent for his jury trial waiver rendered it void, that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation, and that the supervision condition regarding proximity to victims was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding that the State's written consent was not a jurisdictional prerequisite, the evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of the 1000-foot no-contact condition, and Lindley could not challenge the condition's vagueness for the first time on appeal.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewDeferred AdjudicationCommunity Supervision RevocationJury Trial WaiverDue ProcessSufficiency of EvidenceTerms of SupervisionAttempted Capital MurderTexas Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beasley v. Molett

William J. Beasley and other applicants sought to enjoin proceedings under the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 841) and to declare the Act unconstitutional, specifically challenging the role of Maria Molett on the multidisciplinary team. The trial court denied the requested relief. On appeal, the applicants raised numerous constitutional challenges, including issues related to due process, equal protection, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, separation of powers, double jeopardy, ex post facto law, and the Texas Open Meetings Act. The appellate court systematically addressed each challenge, upholding the Act against claims of unconstitutionality, vague standards, procedural deficiencies in notice and counsel, and the nature of the multidisciplinary team. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Act is civil in nature and meets constitutional requirements.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predators ActConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentSeparation of PowersDouble JeopardyEx Post Facto Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cartagena v. Challenger Columbia, Inc.

This case concerns six seamen who filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Challenger Columbia, Inc., Equity Steamship Agencies, Ltd., and John P. Emmans, seeking recovery for unpaid wages and other compensation after their vessel, the M/V Ocean Challenger, sank. The court addressed claims for wages, termination compensation, vacation pay, overtime, lost belongings, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees. Applying Panamanian law and principles of issue preclusion, the court granted summary judgment for the seamen on claims matching the amounts in their pay vouchers, including wages, termination compensation, vacation pay, lost belongings, and overtime, as well as interest and liquidated damages. However, claims for additional compensation beyond the pay voucher amounts for lost possessions and overtime, and claims for attorney's fees, were denied, with the latter requiring a finding of 'callousness' which is a factual issue.

Seamen's wagesAdmiralty lawMaritime lawPanamanian Labor CodeSummary judgmentCorporate veil piercingAlter ego liabilityOvertime pay disputeLost personal belongingsPrejudgment interest
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 5,374 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