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. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. 2015-02-0209
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2016

Peters, James v. A Clean Connection, LLC.

In this interlocutory appeal, injured worker James Peters alleged a foot injury from a ladder fall while working for A Clean Connection, LLC. The employer disputed liability, claiming Peters was an independent contractor. The trial court determined Peters was an employee and awarded medical benefits. On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's finding of an employer-employee relationship but modified the order to remove the requirement for a causation opinion from Dr. Lord. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Board's decision.

Employee vs Independent ContractorWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFoot InjuryLadder FallCleaning Services IndustryMedical Benefits DisputeCausation OpinionInterlocutory AppealEmployer LiabilityWage Withholding
References
11
Case No. No. 373
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1968

Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Miles

Plaintiffs Taft E. Miles et al. brought a personal injury suit against Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. and Daniel V. Leazer after their vehicle collided with the defendants' truck, which was found to be operating without proper lights or reflectors. The jury determined the defendants were negligent, and a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, raising issues concerning the propriety of jury arguments on damages, alleged jury misconduct in calculating awards, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury arguments or misconduct, and upholding the damage awards as not excessive.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceJury InstructionsDamagesAppellate LawTexas JurisprudenceCivil ProcedureEvidentiary IssuesJury Deliberation
References
41
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union v. Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc.

This case involves Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union) petitioning to confirm an arbitration award against Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc. (Bradley). Bradley sought to vacate, remand, or stay the award's enforcement, arguing for deference to a pending NLRB unit clarification petition. The court, noting the NLRB's decision not to intervene, proceeded to address the merits. It found Bradley's challenges to the arbitrator's award, concerning damages for a period prior to the 1981 agreement and inclusion of pension and welfare fund contributions, to be meritless. The court concluded the arbitrator acted within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore confirmed the award. Enforcement was stayed for ten days to allow Bradley to arrange collateral.

Arbitration AwardUnion DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActNLRB JurisdictionStay of EnforcementCollateral RequirementJudicial ReviewArbitration Confirmation
References
6
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. 03-14-00372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Elizabeth A. White v. Clean Slate Service, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of North Austin

Appellant Elizabeth A. White filed suit for damages against Appellee Clean Slate Services, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of North Central Austin for alleged breach of contract related to water removal services. Appellant obtained a default judgment against Appellee, first for liability and then for damages totaling $4,850,000.00. Appellee filed a timely motion for new trial, asserting lack of service, which the trial court granted. Appellant then appealed the granting of the new trial. Appellee argues that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the order granting a new trial is not a final judgment, and alternatively, that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAppellate JurisdictionImproper ServiceBreach of ContractDamagesTrial Court Plenary PowerTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewVacate Judgment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 329 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