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 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. City of Cedar Park

The City of Austin appealed a declaratory judgment that upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill 421, codified as section 42.024 of the Texas Local Government Code. Austin contended that section 42.024 was an unconstitutional local law that regulated its affairs in violation of article III, section 56 of the Texas Constitution. The court found that several classifications within section 42.024, such as limited-purpose annexation, owning an electric utility, and appropriating water via a transbasin diversion permit, lacked a reasonable basis and did not legitimately distinguish Austin and Cedar Park from other municipalities. The court concluded that section 42.024 was a prohibited local law, reversed the trial court's judgment, and declared the section unconstitutional.

Constitutional ChallengeLocal LawsSpecial LegislationMunicipal BoundariesExtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)Annexation PracticesLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPublic Utility OwnershipWater Rights Permits
References
20
Case No. ADJ9697744
Regular
May 25, 2018

JASON POIRIER vs. CITY OF MENLO PARK, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, CITY OF BRISBANE; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision that denied Jason Poirier's claim for kidney cancer benefits. The Board found that the City of Menlo Park failed to rebut the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that Poirier's cancer was industrially caused. Crucially, the Board ruled that Poirier's prior employment with the City of Brisbane could be combined with his Menlo Park employment to satisfy the minimum latency period for cancer causation, a point the trial judge had incorrectly excluded. Consequently, the Board amended the findings to establish that Poirier sustained an industrial injury and returned the case for benefit determination.

Labor Code section 3212.1renal cell carcinomacarcinogen presumptionrebuttallatency periodcumulative traumapolice officerCity of Menlo ParkCity of Brisbaneindustrial injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of University Park v. Van Doren

Thomas L. Van Doren, an assistant police chief, filed a workers' compensation claim after an on-duty injury, leading to the City of University Park eliminating his position. He sued the City for retaliation under the Anti-Retaliation Law, and a jury found in his favor, awarding substantial damages. The trial court reduced the damages to the statutory maximum and denied Van Doren's request for reinstatement. On appeal, the Court affirmed the damages award but reversed the denial of reinstatement, ordering his reemployment. The Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge by the City.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' CompensationJudicial EstoppelMental Anguish DamagesReinstatementHome Rule City PowersAnti-Retaliation LawCircumstantial EvidenceCausation
References
22
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00958
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Parking Expert, Inc. v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the New York City Department of Finance (DOF) that Parking Expert, Inc. violated agency rules. Petitioners were found to have submitted approximately 70 fabricated documents with intent to deceive, leading to a three-year suspension from appearing before DOF's Parking Violations Bureau. The Court held that DOF's determination was supported by substantial evidence, given the extensive nature and similar manner of the fabricated submissions, which refuted petitioners' claims of isolated errors. Furthermore, the Court found the suspension period appropriate and not shocking to the conscience, rejecting arguments of retroactive rule application, improper cross-examination limits, or denial of due process. Consequently, the petition brought under CPLR article 78 was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Parking Violations BureauNew York City Department of FinanceDocument FabricationAdministrative SuspensionJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceIntent to DeceiveDue ProcessRetroactive Application
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 15-25-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Ron Niremberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio

The State sued the City of San Antonio, its Mayor, and its City Manager for ultra vires conduct under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, seeking declarations that the City’s plan to spend taxpayer dollars on travel for out-of-state abortions violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause. The district court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claim was not ripe, and dismissed the suit. The State argues that the City’s plan to fund out-of-state abortion travel violates the Gift Clause by lacking public benefit, failing to serve a public purpose, and not retaining public control over funds. The State contends that delaying judicial review would cause great hardship due to the imminent risk of constitutional injury from the disbursement of funds, which the City intended to expedite before SB 33's effective date or by the end of its fiscal year. The State asserts the case is ripe for review because the illegal activity is "likely to occur," and despite SB 33 prohibiting such funding, the City's belief it can disburse funds by September 30, 2025, keeps the controversy live.

Public Funds MisuseAbortion Travel FundingTexas Gift ClauseRipeness DoctrineUltra Vires ActConstitutional ChallengeState-City ConflictReproductive Rights PolicyTaxpayer MoneyInjunctive Relief
References
89
Case No. 13-12-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2013

Keith Redburn v. Charmelle Garrett, Individually and as City Manager of the City of Victoria, Texas and Lynn Short, Individually and as Director of Public Works of the City of Victoria, Texas and City of Victoria, Texas

Appellant Keith Redburn appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claims against Charmelle Garrett, Lynn Short, and the City of Victoria, Texas. This opinion is a rehearing of a prior decision, with the court withdrawing its earlier opinion. The case involves a property dispute where Redburn plugged a culvert on his land, which the City claims is part of its storm sewer system. Redburn sued for injunctive relief against alleged trespass and for a declaratory judgment. The City filed cross-claims, including for an easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Garrett and Short based on governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, finding their actions within the scope of employment. It also affirmed the dismissal of Redburn's trespass claim against the City due to sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Redburn's declaratory judgment claim against the City regarding an easement, finding it germane to the City's own cross-claim for an easement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentIntentional TortTrespassDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefMunicipal Storm Sewer System
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 4,712 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