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. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. 03-05-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2007

LHR Enterprises, Inc. Task Services, Inc. Business Staffing, Inc. Harry Sewill Rick Chapman And Transglobal Mortgage, Inc. v. Mike Geeslin, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance for the State of Texas Texas Department of Insurance And State Office of Administrative Hearings for the State of Texas

The appellants challenged the Commissioner of Insurance's authority to refer them to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for alleged unauthorized insurance practices, seeking a declaratory judgment. The district court granted a plea to the jurisdiction, which led to this appeal. While the appeal was pending, the Commissioner issued a final order absolving the appellants of wrongdoing. The Texas Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, deeming the controversy moot and affirming the prohibition against advisory opinions.

JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActSovereign ImmunityMootness DoctrineAdministrative HearingsInsurance RegulationTexas Civil PracticeAppellate ProcedureJusticiable ControversyRipeness
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. M2019-00126-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

David Mark Sloane v. Tennessee Department of State, Business Services Division

David Mark Sloane appealed civil penalties assessed by the Tennessee Department of State, Business Services Division, for violations of the Athlete Agent Reform Act of 2011. Sloane, acting as an unregistered athlete agent, initiated contact with and represented a student athlete, Justus Sheffield. The Administrative Law Judge reduced the initial penalties, and the trial court affirmed this decision. Sloane challenged the ALJ's denial of discovery motions, the classification of Sheffield as a student athlete, selective enforcement by the Appellee, and the constitutionality of the penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding Sloane admitted to the violations and failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of selective enforcement or unconstitutional penalties.

Athlete agent regulationCivil penaltiesAdministrative lawJudicial reviewAthlete Agent Reform Act of 2011Selective enforcement claimDue processEighth Amendment challengeTennessee ConstitutionStudent athlete definition
References
31
Case No. 03-99-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, as Successor to John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, as Successor to Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Bandag Licensing Corporation

This case involves an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas from a district court judgment. The district court awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) a recovery of $503,726 in franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. The central issue was whether BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority to do business in Texas, without physical presence or intrastate business, constituted a 'substantial nexus' for franchise tax purposes under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that such passive possession was insufficient for taxation. Furthermore, the court found section 112.108 of the Texas Tax Code, which prohibited attorney's fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, unconstitutional, thereby upholding the award of attorney's fees to BLC.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActGovernmental ImmunitySubstantial NexusCertificate of AuthorityInterstate CommerceTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. 3-93-124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Reuters America, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas, and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that taxed information services but exempted newspapers. Reuters argued this violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Comptroller had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes based on its classification as an information service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the tax, concluding that it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it was not content-based, did not target a small group of speakers, and was a generally applicable sales tax. The court also found that the tax scheme was rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as promoting literacy and administrative economy, and therefore did not violate equal protection.

Constitutional LawTaxationFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionInformation Services TaxNewspaper ExemptionTexas Court of AppealsFreedom of PressState Tax SchemeJudicial Review
References
34
Case No. CA 13-02050 (CLAIM NO. 107559)
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

LM BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, INC. v. STATE OF NEW YORK

This case involves an appeal from a judgment by the Court of Claims that found the State of New York liable for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The claimants' computers were seized in 2001 during an investigation into alleged fraudulent activities. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously reversed the judgment and dismissed the amended claim. The court determined that the State's control over the computers did not constitute conversion, as it was authorized by a valid, unchallenged search warrant and the property remained in the custody of the law until judicially ordered returned. Furthermore, the court found no negligent misrepresentation due to the absence of a 'privity-like relationship' between an investigator and the target of an investigation. Finally, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting that claimants had adequate remedies in alternate forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch and SeizureState LiabilityAppellate ReversalCivil ProcedureProperty LawFraud InvestigationDue ProcessConstitutional Tort
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. 02-10-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

$8780.00 in United States Currency v. State

Anthony Jerome Snell appealed a default judgment that forfeited $8,780 to the State of Texas, after police found the money and 271 pounds of marijuana in his truck. Snell, who was arrested and later incarcerated, failed to file an answer to the State's forfeiture notice, leading to the default judgment. He argued his failure was due to accident or mistake, exacerbated by misleading advice from jail personnel and lack of legal understanding, rather than conscious indifference. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, found Snell's actions, though negligent, did not demonstrate conscious indifference, and noted the State failed to prove injury or undue delay. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentCivil ForfeitureMotion to Set AsideCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseNew TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 13,205 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