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. 03-06-00572-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2009

Village of Salado v. Lone Star Storage Trailer, II Ltd. and Lone Star Storage Trailer

The Village of Salado annexed property, including land owned by Lone Star Storage Trailer, II Ltd. and Lone Star Storage Trailer. Lone Star filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing the annexation ordinance was void. The district court granted Lone Star's motion for summary judgment and declared the ordinance void. The Village appealed, challenging the district court's interpretation of Local Government Code section 43.025 regarding voluntary annexation and the contiguity requirement. The appellate court disagreed with Lone Star's contention that consent from all contiguous property owners was required, finding such an interpretation would frustrate legislative intent and lead to arbitrary results. The court reversed the district court's judgment, rendered judgment that the annexation ordinance is valid, and remanded the issue of attorney's fees to the district court for further determination.

AnnexationVoluntary AnnexationLocal Government CodeStatutory ConstructionContiguitySummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawProperty Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1980

Mader v. Crowell

This class action, filed in 1978, challenged the constitutionality of Tennessee's senatorial district apportionment plan from 1973. The district court initially found the plan unconstitutional due to an 18.03% population deviation and enjoined future elections under it, retaining jurisdiction for a new plan if the General Assembly failed to act. After the legislature enacted a new plan with a 0.89% deviation, the Supreme Court initially deemed the state's appeal moot but later remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs then sought additional relief, arguing two districts lacked contiguity and that voter disenfranchisement resulted from shifting voters between odd and even-numbered districts due to staggered terms. The court denied further relief, finding no federal constitutional requirement for contiguity and deeming the temporary disenfranchisement a de minimis, unavoidable consequence of reapportionment, especially given the new plan's near-perfect mathematical equality.

Legislative ApportionmentSenatorial DistrictsOne Person, One VotePopulation EqualityRedistrictingContiguityVoter DisenfranchisementStaggered TermsEqual Protection ClauseClass Action
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Joseph

Justice Manzanet-Daniels dissents in part regarding a conviction for second-degree burglary. The dissent argues that the basement, which was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above, should not qualify as a 'dwelling' under the burglary statute, referencing legal precedents set in Quinn v People and People v McCray. The core argument is that the increased penalty for dwelling burglary is meant to prevent 'midnight terror' and 'danger to human life,' which do not apply when the burglarized area is remote and inaccessible from living quarters. The dissent emphasizes that the critical factor for determining a 'dwelling' is the close contiguity and accessibility between residential and nonresidential elements, not necessarily the building's size. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree burglary should be reversed.

BurglarySecond Degree BurglaryDwellingAccessibilityInaccessibilityLiving QuartersStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawProperty CrimeDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim

Plaintiff Cumulus and its predecessors initiated a suit claiming adverse possession of a service road that encroached onto Defendant Shim's adjacent property. The Chancery Court granted summary judgment to Cumulus based on common law adverse possession. The Court of Appeals reversed, asserting that Cumulus's failure to pay taxes on the disputed strip, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-2-110, barred the claim. This Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the statutory bar in TCA 28-2-110 does not apply to minor boundary disputes between contiguous properties where both owners had paid taxes on their respective main tracts. The judgment of the Chancery Court, confirming Cumulus's common law adverse possession, was reinstated.

Adverse PossessionBoundary DisputeReal Estate TaxesCommon LawStatutory BarPrescriptive EasementSummary JudgmentContiguous PropertyLand DisputeProperty Law
References
60
Case No. 03-06-00572-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2009

Tommy Earl Landrum Jr. v. State

The Village of Salado annexed property, including land owned by Lone Star Storage Trailer. Lone Star filed a declaratory judgment action, asking the district court to declare the annexation ordinance void. The district court granted Lone Star’s motion and denied the Village’s. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in part, holding that the annexation complied with Section 43.025 of the Local Government Code. The court found that the statute does not require consent from all contiguous property owners, only a majority vote of qualified voters in the area to be annexed, and that Lone Star's interpretation would lead to arbitrary results and frustrate legislative intent. The court rendered judgment that the annexation ordinance is valid and enforceable, and remanded for a determination of attorney's fees.

Annexation LawMunicipal OrdinanceStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory ReliefSummary Judgment ReviewLocal GovernmentProperty ContiguityTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate DecisionVoter Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Grimes v. Dorchester Gas Producing Co.

Appellants E.B. Grimes et al. appealed an adverse take-nothing judgment concerning an oil and gas lease termination. The central dispute revolved around whether a 1936 oil and gas lease, covering 191.22 acres and subsequently included in a 640.22 acre “consolidated area,” had terminated due to alleged non-contiguous tracts and illegal production under Railroad Commission rules. The trial court withdrew the case from the jury and rendered judgment for the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the 1940 operating agreement unambiguously consolidated the tracts, and production from the Bednorz No. 4 well, located within the consolidated area, was sufficient to maintain the lease. The court also held that Railroad Commission actions do not determine contractual questions between parties, and alleged misrepresentations to the Commission would not invalidate the underlying lease.

Oil and Gas LeaseLease TerminationConsolidated AreaPooling AgreementContractual InterpretationRailroad CommissionTexas LawAppellate ReviewTake-nothing JudgmentProperty Rights
References
17
Showing 1-7 of 7 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