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. 2025 NY Slip Op 01020 [235 AD3d 1124]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd.

The case involves an appeal by Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. against the Town of Moreau Planning Board, Raymond Apy, and Saratoga Biochar Solutions, LLC. The appeal challenged a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul the Planning Board's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its approval of a site plan for a biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Planning Board failed to take a 'hard look' at the project's potential adverse impacts, particularly concerning hazardous air pollutant emissions. The court concluded that the Planning Board's unexplained deference to DEC permitting standards without a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious, thus granting the petition and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Environmental ImpactState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Planning Board DeterminationHazardous Air PollutantsBiosolids RemediationSite Plan ApprovalNegative Declaration RescissionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Phillips Petroleum Company appealed the district court's affirmation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) decision to grant nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions allowances to Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SCLP). Phillips contended that its ownership of eight boilers entitled it to these allowances, while SCLP argued entitlement based on its operational control of the boilers within a cogeneration facility at Phillips's refinery. The TCEQ had previously issued an air quality permit to SCLP, requiring SCLP to demonstrate operational control over the boilers for site-wide emissions netting. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the TCEQ's allocation to SCLP was reasonable. This was because the boilers were considered part of SCLP's "site" under both air quality and Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) regulations, primarily due to SCLP's established operational control.

Environmental LawEmissions AllowancesNOxAir Quality PermitOperational ControlSite-wide NettingRegulatory InterpretationAdministrative LawTexas Commission on Environmental QualityCogeneration Facility
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Phillips Petroleum Company v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership

Phillips Petroleum Company appealed a district court decision affirming the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) grant of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions allowances to Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SCLP). Phillips argued it was entitled to the allowances as the boilers' owner, while SCLP claimed entitlement due to operational control within its cogeneration facility at Phillips's refinery. The Commission and district court allocated the allowances to SCLP, emphasizing SCLP's operational control established during a prior air quality permitting process for emissions netting. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Commission's decision reasonable given the similar 'control' criteria in both the air quality permit and Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) regulations, and deferring to the agency's interpretation of its complex rules.

Emissions allowancesNOxair quality permitcogenerationMass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT)operational controlsite-wide emissions nettingregulatory interpretationadministrative lawenvironmental law
References
26
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
Feb 08, 1999

Beaver v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

This case involves an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Patricia Beaver against Delta Air Lines, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Beaver, a former Reservations Sales Agent (RSA), claimed Delta failed to reasonably accommodate her partial blind spot, a permanent vision loss sustained after a head injury. Delta argued that Beaver could not perform the essential functions of the RSA position, specifically productivity and attendance standards, even with accommodation. The court granted Delta's motion for summary judgment, finding that Beaver was not a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA because she could not perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and Delta reasonably accommodated her by offering a senior clerk position.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationDisability AccommodationSummary JudgmentVision ImpairmentEssential FunctionsQualified Individual with a DisabilityPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas AnalysisFifth Circuit
References
28
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. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Stigger

This worker's compensation case concerns an appeal by Standard Fire, the carrier, against a judgment rendered in favor of Stigger, the claimant, by a county court at law of Dallas County. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded Stigger $2,377.62, but after a jury trial initiated by Standard Fire to set aside the award, the court rendered a judgment for Stigger in the amount of $34,692.21. Standard Fire appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdictional limits and erred in not reducing the judgment to conform to Stigger's pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that once jurisdiction is lawfully acquired, subsequent events do not defeat it, and a court can grant complete relief even if the judgment exceeds the initial jurisdictional limits, especially in worker's compensation cases.

Worker's CompensationJurisdiction LimitsCounty Court at LawAmount in ControversyAppellate ReviewTexas Civil StatutesJudicial EconomyPleading ConformityDisability BenefitsIndustrial Accident Board
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,426 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