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

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VanDevender v. Woods

James VanDevender, a deputy sheriff, filed a declaratory judgment action alleging appellees failed to pay his full salary during a second term after an on-the-job injury. He argued that Article III, Section 52e of the Texas Constitution, which authorizes counties to pay salaries during incapacity, should be liberally construed to extend payments into a second term if the disability continued and he was re-deputized. The trial court ruled against VanDevender, stating his entitlement to benefits ended with the first term. The appellate court affirmed, interpreting the constitutional provision to mean salary payments cease at the expiration of the original term of appointment, regardless of re-appointment. The court emphasized giving effect to the plain meaning of the constitutional clause.

Declaratory JudgmentDeputy Sheriff SalaryOn-the-job InjuryConstitutional InterpretationTexas Constitution Article III Section 52eWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTerm of OfficeIncapacity PaymentsReappointmentAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Sherman v. Henry

This case addresses whether a public employee’s private, legal sexual conduct is protected under the Texas Constitution. The City of Sherman's police chief denied appellee Otis Henry a promotion to sergeant based solely on his off-duty relationship with Kelly Olson, a recently separated wife of a fellow officer. The trial court ruled in favor of Henry, finding a violation of his right to privacy under the Texas and United States Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the constitutional issues, holding that Henry's conduct is protected by the Texas Constitution, and the City failed to prove a compelling governmental interest achievable by less intrusive means. However, the court reversed and remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for a new trial.

Privacy RightsTexas ConstitutionPublic Employee RightsPolice PromotionOff-Duty ConductGovernmental InterestStrict ScrutinyConstitutional LawCivil Service CommissionSexual Conduct
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Enamel Mfg. Co. v. Hake

The Tennessee Enamel Manufacturing Company challenged the constitutionality of a section of the Unemployment Compensation Act in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. The company argued that allowing unemployment benefits for striking employees violated the State Constitution's due process clause by taking their property without due process, especially since their jobs remained available. The Commissioner of Employment Security moved to dismiss the suit, asserting that adequate administrative remedies existed and the complainant's harm was uncertain. The chancellor dismissed the bill, prompting an appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's dismissal, concluding that the lawsuit was prematurely initiated as the complainant had not exhausted the available administrative remedies, and any potential increase in the company's tax rate due to benefit payments was contingent and not a direct penalty. The court reinforced the presumption of constitutionality for such legislative enactments.

Unemployment Compensation ActConstitutionality ChallengeLabor Dispute BenefitsExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunction RequestDue Process ClauseProperty RightsEmployer ContributionsStriking EmployeesStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital

This case addresses the distribution of funds from a wrongful death settlement, specifically concerning a workmen's compensation lien and plaintiff's attorney fees. The court examined whether Workmen's Compensation Law § 29, subd. 1, which mandates full reimbursement of the carrier's lien without contribution to attorney fees, is constitutional. It found the provision unconstitutional, arguing it unjustly burdens the plaintiff—a widow with infant children—by forcing her to cover legal costs for the carrier's benefit. The court concluded that such a statutory requirement violates due process and equal protection clauses of both Federal and New York State Constitutions, and abrogates the constitutional right to a full recovery for death-related injuries.

Wrongful DeathWorkmen's Compensation LienAttorney's FeesConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionUnjust EnrichmentSubrogationSettlement DisbursementJudiciary Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,093 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