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. No. 05-11-01377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Noell, David W., City of Carrollton, Carrollton Property Standards Board, Crow-Billingsley Air Park, LTD, Henry Billingsley v. Air Park Common Area Preservation Association, Chad Maisel, Amy Eklund, and Dale Burgdorf

This case involves a dispute between homeowners of Air Park Dallas, a residential airpark community, and a real estate developer (Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. and Henry Billingsley), the Air Park Zoning Committee, and the City of Carrollton. The homeowners sued after the City ordered the airpark’s airport closed following its annexation of a portion of the airport and the passage of a regulating ordinance. The trial court initially found the ordinance facially valid but the closure order invalid, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to homeowners against the City and against the developer for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the closure order but reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, remanding claims concerning its constitutionality. The court also affirmed most of the jury’s findings against the developer and Zoning Committee, modifying only a specific part of the injunction.

Property RightsZoning OrdinanceEasementsBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyMunicipal LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineAirport Regulation
References
92
Case No. 06-21-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2022

Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, UATP Management, LLC, Zoya Enterprises, Ltd., and UA Holdings, LLC v. Hamza Lakhani

Hamza Lakhani, an appellee, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC and several other entities (appellants) after suffering injuries at an adventure park. The appellants sought to compel arbitration based on a release signed by Lakhani. The trial court denied this motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial for UATP, Zoya, and UA, concluding no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and Lakhani. However, the court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, but severed a provision that prohibited the award of punitive or exemplary damages, deeming it unconscionable. The case was subsequently reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration for Lakhani's claims against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, consistent with the modified agreement.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryContract LawUnconscionabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Gross NegligenceAppellate Decision
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L. B. Smith, Inc. v. Circle Air Freight Corp.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Circle Air Freight Corp. moved to dismiss two affirmative defenses raised by third-party defendant Iberia Air Lines of Spain. The court denied the motion to strike the first affirmative defense, 'failure to state a cause of action,' as it is not subject to such a motion. Regarding the second affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was time-barred by the two-year period in Warsaw Convention article 29, Circle argued this period was inapplicable to contribution claims. However, the court ruled that Warsaw Convention article 29 constitutes an absolute condition precedent to suit, not merely a statute of limitations, and its two-year period applies broadly to all actions for damages, including those for contribution, overriding conflicting State laws. Consequently, Circle's motion to strike Iberia's second affirmative defense was also denied.

Warsaw ConventionContributionStatute of LimitationsCondition PrecedentAir Carrier LiabilityThird-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseDismissal MotionFederal SupremacyTreaty Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc. v. Appraisal Review Board of Galveston County

The Texas Court of Appeals addressed whether Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 21.05, which permits the allocation of commercial aircraft value based on in-state use, constitutes an unconstitutional tax exemption under the Texas Constitution. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc. appealed the trial court's summary judgment, which found the statute unconstitutional and denied Tex-Air's allocation claim for its helicopters used in offshore ferry services. The appellate court reversed, holding that § 21.05 is a valid valuation statute, not an exemption, distinguishing it from prior conflicting precedent. The court sustained Tex-Air's point of error regarding the statute's constitutionality and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion, including a determination of attorney's fees.

Texas tax lawproperty valuationtax exemptioncommercial aircraftinterstate commercesummary judgmentconstitutional lawTex. Tax Code Ann. § 21.05judicial reviewremand
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. A-16-CA-060-SS
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Sullivan

This case addresses whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts provisions of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) that regulate the reimbursement rates for air ambulance services. Plaintiff Air Evac EMS, Inc. argued that the TWCA's restrictions on its charges for services to workers' compensation patients are preempted by the ADA. The State Defendants (Texas Commissioner of Insurance and Texas Commissioner of Workers' Compensation) and Intervenor Defendants (multiple workers' compensation insurers) contended against preemption, citing a presumption against federal interference with state police powers and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court found that the ADA's preemption provision, which broadly prohibits state laws related to an air carrier's prices, routes, or services, applies to the TWCA's compensation scheme for air ambulance providers. Furthermore, the court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not shield the TWCA provisions because they regulate the 'business of insurance companies' rather than the 'business of insurance.' As a result, the court granted Air Evac's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the State Defendants from enforcing the challenged TWCA provisions against Air Evac.

Airline Deregulation ActTexas Workers' Compensation ActFederal PreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesPrice RegulationMcCarran-Ferguson ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought a preliminary injunction against Air France to prevent the unilateral cancellation of their collective bargaining agreement from January 3, 1977, and to compel Air France to continue recognizing IAM as the representative for cargo agents. Air France terminated the agreement citing Article XVII(q), which was triggered by a National Mediation Board (NMB) decision concerning United Air Lines freight agents, interpreting it as permitting separate bargaining units for cargo agents. IAM contended that Air France's actions violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that Article XVII(q) itself was illegal and an attempt to bypass RLA procedures. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, categorizing the dispute as both a 'minor dispute' concerning contract interpretation, falling under the National Railroad Adjustment Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and a 'major dispute' regarding employee representation, which is under the primary jurisdiction of the NMB. Since administrative remedies had not been exhausted, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed.

Labor LawRailway Labor ActCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionMinor DisputeMajor DisputeNational Mediation BoardNational Railroad Adjustment BoardUnion Representation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2017

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a breach of contract suit related to defects in the design and construction of a hotel. Appellant Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. (Elness), the architectural firm, appealed a judgment in favor of appellees RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC (collectively, RLJ), the hotel owner. RLJ had acquired the contract rights through an assignment from a previous owner and had settled with other defendants, EBCO (general contractor) and Terracon (geotechnical engineering firm). The jury found Elness liable and awarded RLJ $785,000 in damages. The trial court applied settlement credits and attorney's fees, resulting in a net award to RLJ. On appeal, Elness's issues regarding RLJ's capacity to sue, evidence admissibility, jury charge, and damages sufficiency were overruled. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding attorney's fees. It ruled that after applying the one-satisfaction rule and the $1,170,000 in settlement credits from other defendants, RLJ did not actually recover any damages from Elness. Consequently, RLJ was not a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees under Texas law. The court reversed the trial court’s final judgment and rendered a judgment that RLJ take nothing.

Breach of ContractArchitectural NegligenceConstruction DefectsHotel DevelopmentContract AssignmentCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentEvidence AdmissibilityJury ChargeDamages
References
151
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. 2015-03-0886
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

King, Joshua v. Compass Heating and Air, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal concerns an HVAC installer, Joshua T. King, who claimed a hernia injury sustained while installing an air conditioning unit for Compass Heating and Air. Despite the employer's denial of a compensable injury, the trial court initially awarded King medical and temporary partial disability benefits. Compass Heating and Air appealed solely the award of temporary partial disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence supported the likelihood of King's success at trial. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings to resolve outstanding issues, including the specific dates of King's subsequent employment at a restaurant.

Hernia injuryHVAC workerWorkers' compensationTemporary partial disabilityMedical benefitsInterlocutory appealAppellate reviewEmployer liabilityCompensable injuryLifting restrictions
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,087 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