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. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR, 03-05-00596-CR, 03-05-00597-CR, 03-05-00598-CR, 03-05-00599-CR, 03-05-00600-CR, 03-05-00601-CR, 03-05-00602-CR, 03-05-00603-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte Ellis

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro sought the dismissal of indictments accusing them of accepting unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the election code provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the money laundering statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the orders of the district court, holding that the election code's prohibitions on corporate political contributions are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the pre-2005 version of the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as it did not include checks.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineCampaign FinanceMoney LaunderingElection LawFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsStatutory InterpretationCriminal Indictments
References
83
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. 03-05-00585-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte John Dominick Colyandro

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro appealed the denial of their pretrial habeas corpus petitions, seeking dismissal of indictments for unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the Texas Election Code provisions and the money laundering statute were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the district court's orders. The court held that the election code's restrictions on corporate campaign contributions were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the pre-2005 money laundering statute, which did not include checks or other negotiable instruments as "funds," was also not facially vague.

Campaign FinanceMoney LaunderingConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengeFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsElection CodeStatutory InterpretationPretrial Habeas Corpus
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Salamon

Defendant Yehuda Salamon moved to dismiss charges and declare Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional, arguing its vagueness regarding prohibited conduct, mens rea, and standard of proof. The People opposed, contending 'lack of due care' functions as a culpable mental state and the statute sufficiently defines prohibited conduct. The court analyzed the constitutionality of the statute, specifically the 'due care' standard, in the context of criminal liability and the requirement for mens rea. The court found that the civil tort liability standard of negligence ('due care') is inconsistent with criminal conduct's awareness requirement and creates unconstitutional vagueness. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion, finding Administrative Code § 19-190 (b) unconstitutional on its face and dismissing the related charges, while other charges remained.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessCriminal NegligenceMens ReaStrict LiabilityAdministrative CodeVehicle and Traffic LawMotion to DismissPedestrian Safety
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz

Petitioners challenged Local Law No. 5 (2011) of the Town of New Paltz, aimed at protecting wetlands and watercourses, alleging non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and unconstitutional vagueness. The Supreme Court initially annulled the local law and negative declaration. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board had fulfilled its SEQRA obligations by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns and issuing a reasoned negative declaration. The court also found the 2011 law not unconstitutionally vague, providing sufficient notice to property owners. Additionally, the court rejected claims regarding unconstitutional conservation fees, preemption by state laws, and minor procedural irregularities, thereby dismissing the petition and upholding the constitutionality of Local Law No. 5 (2011).

Environmental LawSEQRALocal Government LawWetlands ProtectionDeclaratory Judgment ActionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstitutional ChallengeVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingsLand Use Regulation
References
33
Case No. PD-0254-18
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Doyal, Craig

Craig Doyal, a Montgomery County Judge, was indicted for allegedly conspiring to circumvent the Texas Open Meetings Act (§551.143) by meeting in a number less than a quorum for secret deliberations concerning a road bond. The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding §551.143 unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment and being vague and overbroad. The Ninth Court of Appeals reversed this decision. Doyal has now filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that §551.143 is a content-based restriction on speech, subject to strict scrutiny, and is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, chilling public officials' free speech.

First AmendmentFree SpeechTexas Open Meetings ActGovernment TransparencyVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineStrict ScrutinyIntermediate ScrutinyPolitical SpeechCriminal Conspiracy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wildman

This case addresses the constitutionality of Administrative Code § 10-118 (b) of the City of New York, which prohibits transporting building materials without proof of ownership. Defendant challenged the statute, arguing the complaint was facially insufficient and that the statute violated due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption and being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Judge Michael Gerstein denied all of defendant's motions. The court found the complaint facially sufficient and determined that the statute does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provides adequate notice of prohibited conduct and clear standards for enforcement, rationally deterring theft and vandalism.

ConstitutionalityDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineIrrebuttable PresumptionAdministrative CodeStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawFacial InsufficiencyProof of Ownership
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. New York

This Memorandum, Decision and Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by Plaintiffs seeking to declare Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003, which amended New York State's Clean Indoor Air Act, unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued the law was preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and was impermissibly vague concerning the distinction between bars and food service establishments, as well as its waiver provision. Presiding Judge Kahn found that federal regulations did not preempt state tobacco smoke regulations and that the challenged provisions were not unconstitutionally vague. Consequently, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The ruling emphasized that issues of enforcement discretion by local health departments do not render the statute itself constitutionally infirm.

Preliminary InjunctionConstitutional LawPreemption DoctrineVagueness ChallengeClean Indoor Air ActSmoking RegulationsOccupational Safety and Health ActEnvironmental Tobacco SmokeState Law ChallengeFederal Preemption
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. New York State

Plaintiffs, Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and Buies, Inc. d/b/a Dodester's, challenged New York State's Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003, which regulated smoking in public places. They sought to declare the law unconstitutional, citing preemption by the OSH Act and unconstitutional vagueness regarding the distinction between bars and food service establishments and waiver criteria. The Court dismissed claims against New York State, its Department of Law, and Department of Health due to sovereign immunity. It found that the OSH Act did not preempt Chapter 13 as no federal standard explicitly covered environmental tobacco smoke. The Court also rejected the vagueness arguments. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Clean Indoor Air ActSmoking BanConstitutional LawPreemptionVagueness DoctrineSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentPublic Health LawOccupational Safety and Health ActEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke
References
32
Case No. 2718 / 02A01-9708-CV-00197
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Susan Todd/State v. Weakley Co.

Plaintiff Susan K. Todd filed a medical malpractice action against Weakley County and several individual defendants. The trial court dismissed the case against the individual defendants, ruling that certain provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) were unconstitutional for vagueness, equal protection violations, and denying the right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding on unconstitutionality, determining that the term "health care practitioner" is not vague and that the provisions do not violate equal protection or the right to a jury trial. The Court affirmed the dismissal of nurse's aides Insco and Jennings, as they are not considered "health care practitioners" under the GTLA, but reversed the dismissal of Nina Snyder and David Bradley, a licensed practical nurse and nursing home administrator respectively.

Medical MalpracticeGovernmental Tort Liability ActConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeEqual ProtectionRight to Jury TrialHealth Care PractitionerGovernmental ImmunityNurse's AidesLicensed Practical Nurse
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 679 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