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. 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

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

Montgomery County v. Grounds

This workers' compensation appeal concerns the death of Chief Deputy Bill Grounds, who suffered a fatal heart attack at his home following severe emotional trauma. The trauma stemmed from his employer, the Montgomery County Sheriff, failing to meet him as promised to discuss a grand jury investigation into altered sheriff department records, leading Grounds to believe he was being abandoned and betrayed. Although Grounds was later indicted for his alleged involvement in record alteration, the jury found that his injury and subsequent death resulted from mental trauma in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the mental trauma, preceding knowledge of the indictment, was the producing cause of his death. The court emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Act should be liberally construed and that compensation is due when a heart attack results from mental or emotional stress traceable to a definite time, place, and event within employment.

Workers' CompensationMental TraumaHeart AttackCourse of EmploymentProducing CauseIndictmentSheriff's DepartmentRecord AlterationEmotional DistressJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 100, International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

Plaintiff District 100, a district lodge of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), initiated this action against Air France, a foreign air carrier, seeking to compel the processing of a grievance related to a prior Mediation Agreement. The dispute stemmed from Air France's decision to contract out commissary work, which resulted in the termination of commissary supervisors. Former supervisor Pasquale Ianniciello filed a grievance, which Air France refused to accept, arguing the supervisors were no longer employees. The court considered Air France's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on several grounds. Ultimately, the court granted Air France's motion, concluding that District 100 lacked standing, the dispute constituted a major change not amenable to existing grievance procedures, and Air France had not frustrated the System Board of Adjustment's operation.

GrievanceLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStandingSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRailway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeSystem Board of Adjustment
References
7
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

Bogus v. Manpower Temporary Services

Karen Bogus, a temporary employee of Manpower Temporary Services assigned to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), sustained injuries after slipping on ice in her workplace parking lot. She reported the incident to Mr. Mike Hill, a TVA supervisor who acted as her primary contact for Manpower. The trial court dismissed her workers' compensation claim, ruling that she failed to provide sufficient notice to her employer. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed this decision, finding that notice to Mr. Hill was adequate given his role, and that Manpower had actual notice of the injury within 30 days. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination on its merits.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementTemporary EmploymentLoaned Employee DoctrineGeneral and Special EmployersScope of EmploymentIcy ConditionsParking Lot AccidentAgencyRemand
References
5
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,008 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