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. 03-03-00154-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2003

City of Marshall and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Formerly Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) v. City of Uncertain Caddo Lake Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Greater Caddo Lake Association Caddo Lake Institute John T. Echols And Barry L. Bennick

The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a district court's decision regarding a water permit amendment sought by the City of Marshall. Marshall's application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) involved an interbasin water transfer and the authorization for industrial water use. The TCEQ approved the amendment without a contested-case hearing, which the district court reversed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling that an evidentiary hearing was necessary for the industrial use amendment and that the executive director lacked authority to approve it without such a hearing. However, the court reversed the district court's finding that the interbasin transfer also required notice and a hearing, determining it fell under a statutory exemption.

Environmental LawWater RightsInterbasin TransferIndustrial UseContested Case HearingAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTexas Water Code
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04235 [185 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v. City of New York

This case concerns a challenge to the City of New York's rezoning plan for the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan. Petitioners, including Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale, sought to annul the City Council's resolutions, arguing that the environmental reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) were inadequate. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, granting their request to annul the rezoning plan. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the City's environmental review process was lawful and that it took the requisite 'hard look' at potential environmental impacts. The Appellate Division concluded that the City's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence, thereby denying the petition and dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Environmental LawRezoningSEQRACEQRArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewLand UseUrban PlanningAffordable HousingInwood Neighborhood
References
16
Case No. 03-14-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2014

Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead Michael McCall Wayne Knox And the City of Hempstead v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C.

This case involves an appeal by Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead (CALH), Michael McCall, Wayne Knox, and the City of Hempstead (collectively, Appellants) against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C. (Appellees). The appeal challenges the district court's judgment upholding TCEQ's decision to issue Registration No. 40259 to Pintail Landfill, L.L.C. for a transfer station/materials recovery facility. The appellants argue that the facility requires a full permit, not just a registration, under TCEQ rules, and that they were denied due process without an opportunity for a contested case hearing. They also contend that TCEQ violated its own policy by allowing an excessive number of Notices of Deficiency (NODs) during the application review process. The district court affirmed TCEQ's decision, which the appellants are now challenging.

Landfill PermitTransfer StationRecycling FacilityEnvironmental LawTCEQ RulesDue ProcessAdministrative Procedure ActNotice of DeficiencyWaste ManagementTexas Appeals Court
References
10
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03321 [42 NY3d 992]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a challenge to a negative declaration issued by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) concerning a proposed affordable housing development on a lot currently occupied by the Elizabeth Street Garden. Petitioners argued that HPD failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts, particularly regarding open space reduction and climate change, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, upholding HPD's negative declaration. The Court found that HPD took a 'hard look' at relevant environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for its determination that the project would not have a significant adverse environmental impact, despite the study area being underserved with open space.

Affordable HousingEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRNegative DeclarationOpen SpaceClimate ChangeUrban DevelopmentNew York City LawCPLR Article 78
References
19
Case No. 03-15-00814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order concerning a plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant A. I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.) challenged a 2013 compliance history rating assigned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) and its Executive Director, Richard Hyde, which classified A.I. as an 'unsatisfactory performer'. A.I. argued that an agreed final judgment (AFJ) used by the Commission should not have been considered due to its specific terms and that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious. A.I. also sought declaratory relief under various acts and alleged a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals determined that A.I.'s suit for judicial review was moot because the 2013 rating had been superseded. The court further held that A.I.'s claims for declaratory relief lacked a justiciable controversy and its breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the dismissal of the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Compliance HistoryEnvironmental RegulationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMootness DoctrineSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractTexas Water CodeTexas Health and Safety Code
References
36
Case No. 03-04-00574-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2005

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, City of Bulverde and Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority

Bexar Metropolitan Water District appealed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's approval of the City of Bulverde's application for a water utility service certificate. The central issue was whether a municipality could demonstrate the required financial, managerial, and technical capability through contracts with a river authority (Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority) rather than possessing those capabilities directly. An Administrative Law Judge initially recommended denying Bulverde's application, but the Commission rejected this, finding Bulverde capable through its contracts. The district court affirmed the Commission's order, which the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the Commission acted within its authority and that there was substantial evidence to support its decision.

Water Utility ServiceCertificate of Public Convenience and NecessityEnvironmental RegulationInterlocal AgreementsMunicipal Water SupplyAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Water CodePublic Utility Regulation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2004

Askew v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, acting as a union chairman, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Christopher O. Ward. The petitioner challenged the reduction of engineers and their replacement with senior sewage treatment workers, alleging violations of the State and New York City Environmental Quality Review Acts (SEQRA/CEQR) for lack of an environmental impact statement, and Civil Service Law § 61 (2) for requiring out-of-title work. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner lacked standing for the environmental claim and that both causes of action were time-barred. On appeal, the order and judgment were affirmed, with the appellate court concurring that the petitioner lacked standing for both the SEQRA/CEQR and Civil Service Law claims, citing different reasons for the latter.

CPLR Article 78StandingSEQRA/CEQREnvironmental Impact StatementCivil Service LawOut-of-title workTime-barred claimsUnion representationPublic employmentAdministrative review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2010

Chinese Staff & Worker's Ass'n v. Burden

This dissenting opinion challenges the majority's decision that the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) complied with environmental review regulations (SEQRA and CEQR) during a rezoning project in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Petitioners, including the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association, argued that DCP's negative declaration, which stated no significant environmental impact, lacked a

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRZoningRezoningSunset Park BrooklynCommercial DevelopmentResidential DevelopmentNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
7
Case No. 03-14-00667-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. Exxon Mobil Corporation ExxonMobil Oil Corporation Pennzoil-Quaker State Company and Shell Oil Company

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) issued a unilateral administrative order under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to ExxonMobil and Shell Oil Company, compelling them to pay millions for the remediation of the Voda Site without a prior adjudicatory hearing. ExxonMobil and Shell argue for de novo judicial review, challenging the TCEQ's interpretation that review is limited to the administrative record under a pure substantial evidence rule. They assert the City of Waco Supreme Court decision, which concerns permitting and standing for third parties, is inapplicable to this Superfund enforcement action. The appellees contend that the administrative order was issued under both SWDA sections 361.188 and 361.272, which grants them the right to de novo review by a preponderance of the evidence at the district court.

Environmental LawSuperfund ProgramSolid Waste Disposal ActAdministrative OrderJudicial ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceDe Novo ReviewTravis County District CourtTexas Court of AppealsWater Quality
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1991

Save Audubon Coalition v. City of New York

This case involves petitioners challenging the City of New York's approvals for the Audubon Research Park project in Manhattan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR), and Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Petitioners specifically contested amendments to the Zoning Resolution permitting biological research in C6 zones and the site-specific approvals for the Audubon Research Building, claiming environmental impact statements (EIS) were flawed regarding public health and safety and that public notice was inadequate. The court determined that respondents had adequately addressed environmental concerns, provided reasoned elaborations, and fulfilled public notice requirements, despite minor procedural omissions. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed, validating the Board of Estimate's rationally based and non-arbitrary decisions.

Environmental ReviewZoning AmendmentsLand Use PlanningSEQRACEQRULURPPublic HearingsManhattan DevelopmentUrban RenewalBiomedical Research Facilities
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,817 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