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

Council v. Donovan

The petitioner, James T. Council, a substitute teacher, challenged his dismissal and the cancellation of his license after refusing to participate in mandatory shelter drills, citing conscientious objections to nuclear warfare. He argued his rights under Civil Service Law § 75 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated, and that the drills were ineffective. The court dismissed his petition, ruling that as a substitute teacher in the unclassified service, he was not entitled to a formal hearing under Civil Service Law § 75. While acknowledging freedom of conscience, the court affirmed that conduct is subject to reasonable governmental regulation for public safety, upholding the acting Superintendent's decision to cancel his license due to insubordination. The court concluded that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion, as public employment is contingent on complying with lawful terms set by school authorities.

Substitute TeacherLicense CancellationCivil Service LawFreedom of ConscienceFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentShelter DrillsInsubordinationAdministrative RemedyJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

European American Bank v. Strab Construction Corp.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to resettle a prior decision from April 5, 1993, seeking to substitute Marla Strow for the deceased defendant Jerome Strow and to include prejudgment interest in the judgment. The court denied the substitution motion without prejudice, directing an application to the Surrogate's Court and then a motion in the Supreme Court. However, the branch of the motion concerning prejudgment interest was granted, leading to the recall and vacation of the original April 5, 1993 decision, and the substitution of the present decision and order. In this new decision, the appeal against Jerome Strow was dismissed, and the order pertaining to him was vacated because he died before the summary judgment motion was decided. Conversely, the court reversed the prior order concerning defendants Strab Construction Corp. and Gary Rabinowitz, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for $1,205,000, and remitting the case for the calculation of prejudgment interest and attorney fees.

Promissory NotesSummary JudgmentPrejudgment InterestSubstitution of PartiesDeceased DefendantStatute of FraudsOral AgreementAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

City of Houston v. Carlson

The City of Houston appealed a district court's judgment reversing its order for property owners to vacate their condominium units due to safety concerns and lack of occupancy certificates. The City raised arguments regarding the district court's jurisdiction, alleged deprivation of due process rights, and the court's substitution of judgment. The appellate court held that defects in petition verification were not jurisdictional and were waived by the City's failure to specially except. Crucially, the court found the City deprived the property owners of procedural due process by not adhering to the notice and hearing requirements of Local Government Code section 214.001 before issuing the vacation order, as no immediate emergency was present. Consequently, the district court's judgment reversing the City's order was affirmed.

Due ProcessProcedural Due ProcessProperty RightsVacate OrderBuilding Code ViolationsCertificates of OccupancyJurisdictionPetition VerificationAdministrative HearingLocal Government Code
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harbison v. Service Lloyds Insurance Co.

This case, a substituted opinion on a motion for rehearing, addresses the trial court's erroneous admission of expert testimony from Dr. Jose Kuri in a worker's compensation claim filed by Gary Harbison against Service Lloyds Insurance Company. Harbison argued that Dr. Kuri was not timely designated as an expert witness, violating Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(6)(b). Despite the trial court acknowledging the late designation, it allowed Dr. Kuri's testimony, which was pivotal in concluding that Harbison's injury was not caused by his employment fall. The appellate court found that Service Lloyds failed to demonstrate good cause for the late designation and for allowing Dr. Kuri to testify about an MRI performed and interpreted just days before trial, thus creating an unfair disadvantage for Harbison. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, denied Service Lloyds' motion for rehearing, and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of timely discovery and preventing trial by ambush.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesTimely DesignationAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' CompensationMedical ExpertMRI InterpretationReversible ErrorRemandTrial by Ambush
References
12
Case No. No. 01-01-00828-CV
Regular Panel Decision

City of Houston v. Clark

This substitute concurring opinion, authored by Senior Justice Richard H. Edelman, agrees with the majority's disposition in City of Houston v. Clark but offers alternative reasoning. The opinion concludes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the parties' declaratory judgment claims, deeming them moot because the appeal of the hearing examiner's decision would resolve the underlying dispute. Consequently, the district court's declaratory judgment was purely advisory and should be dismissed. Furthermore, the opinion clarifies the limited scope of judicial review for a hearing examiner's decision under Texas Local Government Code Section 143.1016(j). It emphasizes that challenges are confined to whether the examiner lacked or exceeded jurisdiction, rather than contesting the correctness of the ruling. The City's specific arguments regarding waiver of objection and the statutory scope of appeal were ultimately rejected.

Concurring OpinionDeclaratory JudgmentJurisdictionMootnessScope of ReviewHearing ExaminerFire Fighter DisciplineAdministrative LawTexas Local Government CodeAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boney v. Interocean Ugland Management Corp.

Plaintiff Terrence Boney sued Defendant Interocean Ugland Management Corporation (IUM) for negligence and unseaworthiness after suffering injuries while working aboard the vessel HMI DYNACHEM. IUM subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Atlantic Cordage Corp., alleging the company manufactured a faulty rope contributing to the accident. Following a settlement between Boney and IUM, IUM received an assignment of Boney's claims against Atlantic Cordage and moved to substitute as party plaintiff to pursue these claims. The Court denied IUM's motion, ruling that federal admiralty law does not permit the assignment of unliquidated personal injury claims in the absence of specific statutory authority. The decision highlighted that such assignments are generally invalid under common law and maritime law principles.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawPersonal Injury ClaimsAssignment of ClaimsUnliquidated ClaimsMotion to Substitute PartyThird-Party ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJones Act claimsVessel Injury
References
10
Case No. 01-19-00892-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

U. Lawrence Boze v. Dr. Rayola Cartwright

This memorandum opinion from the First District of Texas addresses an appeal by U. Lawrence Bozé challenging the appointment of a substitute receiver. Dr. Rayola Cartwright had obtained a judgment against Bozé in 2004, leading to a turnover order and receiver appointment in 2015. In 2019, the trial court discharged the initial receiver and appointed a substitute. Bozé appealed, initially attempting to challenge the 2015 receivership, but later abandoning these issues to focus solely on the appellate jurisdiction of the substitute receiver appointment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, concluding that an order substituting a receiver is not an interlocutorily appealable order and that Bozé's attempts to vacate the underlying 2015 receivership were untimely.

Appellate JurisdictionSubstitute ReceiverReceivership TerminationTurnover OrderDismissal for Want of JurisdictionAbandoned IssuesReply Brief LimitationsFinal Appealable OrderTexas Court of AppealsPost-judgment Enforcement
References
7
Case No. CV-24-1068
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Lynn Pandolfi

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying counsel fees to Grey & Grey, LLP. The law firm had represented Lynn Pandolfi in her workers' compensation claim but was relieved due to a breakdown in communication. The WCLJ and the Board denied fees, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (3), which they interpreted to preclude fees when a prior attorney is not substituted by new counsel. The Appellate Division clarified that § 24 (3) applies to fee allocation between substituted attorneys and does not bar fees for an un-substituted attorney. The court remitted the matter for the Board to determine fees based on services rendered, considering the claimant's financial state.

Counsel FeesWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Statutory InterpretationAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstitution of CounselWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewRemittalLegal RepresentationUnrepresented Claimant
References
3
Case No. B14-91-00539-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 1995

Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Chatham

This case concerns the appeal of judgments from 289 consolidated asbestos personal injury lawsuits. Appellants, asbestos manufacturers, argued for a new trial due to the loss of critical medical and biographical summaries from the trial record, preventing proper appellate review under Tex.R.App.P. 50(e). The Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that lost exhibits are part of the court reporter's records and cannot be substituted without party agreement if a timely request for statement of facts was made and the loss was not the appellant's fault. The court found the trial court lacked authority to substitute the documents and that the substituted copies were inaccurate and incomplete. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the majority of the trial court's judgment for a new trial, while affirming some take-nothing judgments.

Asbestos LitigationAppellate ProcedureLost RecordsStatement of FactsNew TrialConsolidated CasesPersonal InjuryRule 50(e)Discovery RuleStatute of Limitations
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Houston Independent School District

The plaintiff, an unnamed substitute teacher, brought a wrongful discharge lawsuit against the Houston Independent School District (HISD) and two principals, Sonia Saenz and Ada Cooper. The plaintiff alleged violations of due process and equal protection under the Texas Constitution, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various state common law claims after being removed from the substitute teacher list due to complaints. Chief Judge Norman W. Black of the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had no protected property or liberty interest in their employment and that the defendants were shielded by governmental and qualified official immunity from the state law claims. The court concluded that substitute teachers are not entitled to continued employment or a pre-termination hearing under Texas law.

Wrongful DischargeDue ProcessEqual ProtectionEmployment At WillQualified ImmunityGovernmental ImmunitySubstitute TeacherTexas Constitution42 U.S.C. § 1983Property Interest
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 319 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