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

Harris County v. Going

Ronald F. Going, a former patrolman and sergeant for Harris County, sued the county after being demoted and subsequently terminated. Going alleged that his demotion and termination violated his free speech rights under the Texas Constitution. A jury found in favor of Going, awarding him damages and recommending reinstatement. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Harris County could not be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior. The court also held that even under a Monell standard, no constitutional violation attributable to Harris County occurred as the jury found the direct supervisor did not violate Going's rights. Additionally, the court rejected Going's cross-points regarding remand for front pay, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and whistleblower statute claims due to governmental immunity and failure to meet the statute of limitations.

Governmental immunityFree speechTexas Constitution42 U.S.C. § 1983Whistleblower ActPublic employee rightsWrongful demotionWrongful terminationOfficial policyRespondeat superior
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. Holston Defense Corporation

Eoscoe E. Whitehead was awarded total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law due to pulmonary fibrosis, an occupational disease contracted during his employment at Holston Defense Corporation. The defendant appealed, challenging the compensability of the disease and alleging lack of proper notice. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding substantial evidence of a causal connection between Whitehead's work conditions and his illness. The Court also determined that the employer's medical staff had actual knowledge of Whitehead's condition and concealed it from him. It broadly interpreted T.C.A. sec. 50-1101 to include Whitehead's ailment as a compensable occupational disease, overruling the assignments of error.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary FibrosisWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityCausationEmployer KnowledgeConcealment of ConditionStatutory ConstructionNon-scheduled Occupational DiseaseIndustrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comes v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Plaintiff Lynn L. Comes, a laborer employed by William H. Lane, Inc., sustained a back injury while moving a steel I-beam on the defendant's property. He and his wife initiated an action against the property owner, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to this appeal. The appellate court found the defendant not liable, determining there was no evidence of supervisory control or notice under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, and no specific implementing regulation under Labor Law § 241 (6) for moving I-beams. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was reversed, and the complaint dismissed.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawNegligenceConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySupervisory ControlProperty Owner LiabilityAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
5
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. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1999

Rothe Development Corp. v. United States Department of Defense

Rothe Development Corporation, a San Antonio-based company, sued the United States Department of Defense after losing a contract due to an evaluation preference favoring "socially and economically disadvantaged persons" under the 1207 program (10 U.S.C. § 2323). Rothe, the low bidder, argued this preference violated its Fifth Amendment equal protection rights. The government contended the preference met strict scrutiny standards. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, ultimately granting the government's motion and denying Rothe's. The decision affirmed that Congress has a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination in government contracting and found the 1207 program, with its rebuttable presumptions and limited duration, to be narrowly tailored, rejecting Rothe's arguments regarding burden of proof, neutral alternatives, and the impact on third parties.

Affirmative ActionEqual ProtectionStrict ScrutinyGovernment ContractsSmall Disadvantaged Businesses1207 ProgramFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentRacial PreferencesSummary Judgment
References
47
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03670 [239 AD3d 1157]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Lo (Go N.Y. Tours Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Yero Lo, a street ticket seller for Go New York Tours Inc. (TopView Sightseeing), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after TopView's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Labor initially determined TopView was the employer and liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this, finding Lo and others were independent contractors. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ, concluding that ticket sellers were employees, making TopView liable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence of TopView's control over the ticket sellers, including training, providing equipment, setting parameters for sales, and restricting other employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorStreet Ticket SellerSightseeing Tour BusControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jordan v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the "after-acquired evidence defense" is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentTexas LawEmployment LawAffirmative DefenseEquitable ReliefCausationDamages
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,771 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