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

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings v. South Central Human Resource Agency

This is an appeal regarding the termination of two employees, Hart Hastings and Teri Laster, by the South Central Human Resource Agency (SCHRA). The trial court found SCHRA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in summarily discharging the plaintiffs without proper notice and hearing, ordering their reinstatement with back pay. SCHRA appealed, arguing it is not a state agency, the Grievance Committee hearing did not violate the "Sunshine Law" (Open Meetings Act), and the trial court erred in interpreting its personnel policies regarding misconduct. The appellate court determined SCHRA is a state agency, but reversed the trial court's finding that the Grievance Committee violated the Sunshine Law, stating the committee was not a "governing body." Furthermore, the appellate court found the Grievance Committee did not act fraudulently, illegally, or arbitrarily in upholding the terminations, as "falsification of records" and "improper program management" could be construed as misconduct justifying immediate dismissal under SCHRA's policies.

Government agency statusEmployee terminationDue processPersonnel policiesAdministrative lawOpen meetings actSunshine lawJudicial reviewMisconductFalsification of records
References
7
Case No. 22055
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

Texas Municipal Power Agency (Municipal Power) challenged a trial court's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action, which was filed alongside an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) appeal. The core issue was whether Municipal Power could simultaneously pursue a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) to interpret the general statutory authority of the Public Utility Commission (the Commission) under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), independently of an APA appeal challenging a specific agency order. The court ruled that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking statutory interpretation against the state. It further determined that a UDJA action aiming to define an agency's general statutory authority is distinct from, and not duplicated by, an APA appeal focusing on the validity of a specific agency action. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order granting the pleas to the jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActAPAStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionWholesale ElectricityTransmission CostsMunicipal Utilities
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 15-24-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley v. Texas Municipal Power Agency

This document is a reply brief filed by Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley (Appellants) against Texas Municipal Power Agency (Appellee). The brief addresses several points on appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas. Key arguments include that the trial court's declaratory relief improperly expanded and rewrote the Easement, particularly concerning TMPA's discretion and the interpretation of "wall" versus "fence." The appellants also argue that TMPA incorrectly relied on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §37.011 for injunctive relief without proper pleading or proof, and failed to meet requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. A significant portion of the brief challenges the award of attorney's fees to TMPA, asserting that TMPA failed to provide sufficient evidence for reasonable hourly rates and hours worked, and that the trial court abused its discretion in the award's amount. The Dudleys request the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s judgment, vacate declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions, and deny TMPA’s attorney’s fees claims, or alternatively, reverse and remand the case.

Easement RightsDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureLodestar MethodHourly RatesTrial Court DiscretionPleadingsBrazos County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

Shelton Insurance Agency v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal by Shelton Insurance Agency and John M. Roberts against St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company regarding the alleged mishandling of an insurance claim. Shelton Agency initially sued St. Paul for violations of the DTPA, Texas Insurance Code, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after St. Paul denied coverage to its customer, Frio Drilling Company. A jury found in favor of Shelton Agency, awarding actual and exemplary damages, but the trial court granted St. Paul's motion for judgment n.o.v. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the DTPA, insurance code, breach of good faith, and punitive damages claims. However, it reversed and rendered the judgment on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Shelton Agency was entitled to recover $34,000 for premiums it wrote off.

Insurance LawAgency LiabilityBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingDTPATexas Insurance CodeDenial of CoverageInsurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesJudgment N.O.V.
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,523 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