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
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Commission, challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing these agencies to levy civil penalties. Specifically, TAB argued that provisions requiring a supersedeas bond or cash deposit for judicial review violated the open courts and jury trial provisions of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied TAB's relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the jury trial challenge, concluding that no right to a jury trial exists for appeals from administrative environmental adjudications. However, the Court reversed the trial court on the open courts challenge, holding that mandating a bond or cash deposit as a prerequisite to judicial review was an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on court access.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStandingJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionJury Trial RightEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesTexas ConstitutionSeparation of Powers
References
91
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
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. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,958 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