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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paschal v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

Heard W. Paschal, a longshoreman, initiated a third-party suit against Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., the owner of the SS CHARLES LYKES and Paschal's employer. Subsequently, Lykes, joined by its insurer Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, filed a petition for declaratory judgment. They sought judicial construction of Section 33 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act concerning their continuing liability for compensation payments if Paschal settled his third-party claim. The court, presided over by District Judge Singleton, granted Paschal's motion to strike the petition, finding that no actual or justiciable controversy existed since no settlement had been reached and the Deputy Commissioner had not issued an official ruling. The court also underscored that the Declaratory Judgment Act should not be used to bypass the administrative review procedures mandated by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A later motion for reconsideration filed by Lykes and Hartford was also denied, with the judge affirming the discretionary nature of declaratory relief and the absence of new facts to warrant a rehearing.

Declaratory JudgmentLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActActual ControversyJusticiable ControversyAdministrative ProcedureJudicial DiscretionSettlementThird Party ClaimDual Capacity EmployerMotion to Strike
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Camarena

The Texas Employment Commission appealed declaratory judgments concerning the constitutionality of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act's exclusion of 'agricultural labor.' While the appeal was pending, the legislature amended the Act to include agricultural workers, effective January 1, 1986. The appellate court found the controversy moot due to this legislative change and the parties' agreement on the amended Act's constitutionality. Consequently, the trial court's judgments declaring the prior exclusion unconstitutional and granting injunctive relief were reversed, with instructions to dismiss the suits. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorneys' fees to the employees, ruling that state statutes did not waive governmental immunity for such claims.

Agricultural LaborUnemployment Compensation ActMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityAttorneys' FeesStatutory AmendmentConstitutional ChallengeAppellate ReviewTexas Jurisprudence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

On February 6, 2003, 176 former Enron employees (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking a court declaration that bonuses received from Enron were valid and non-avoidable. The Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. (Employee Committee) responded on March 28, 2003, with a Motion to Dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The Court found the Complaint to be an improper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act, as all potential liability had already accrued from past transactions, and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or risk of increased liability. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss, thereby dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Adversary Proceeding.

Declaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissBankruptcy CodeBankruptcy CourtEnronEmployee BonusesAvoidable TransfersJurisdictionFirst Filed RuleVenue
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. City of Bridge City

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, its executive director, and the Subsequent Injury Fund appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction. The trial court had ruled that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's immediate payment requirement during appeals to the Appeals Panel, without reimbursement, violated constitutional property rights, access to courts, and constituted an illegal taking. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, dissolved the injunction, and rendered judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Act. The court reasoned that municipal corporations cannot assert Article I constitutional rights against legislative acts, and that the challenged scheme was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring prompt payment to injured workers, given the robust contested-case procedures and short appeals panel timelines. The brief interim period without reimbursement was deemed a rational legislative compromise within a complex economic field.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessTexas ConstitutionReimbursement SchemeMunicipal CorporationsIntergovernmental Risk Pool
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sainer v. Affiliated Dress Manufacturers Inc.

An individual dress contractor, referred to as the plaintiff, sought a declaratory judgment against several jobber associations, a contractor association, and labor unions, challenging a "Designation of Contractors" section within their collective agreement. The plaintiff alleged that this provision, which regulated contractor designations and work allocation in the dress industry, violated New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Act (General Business Law § 340) by creating a monopoly and unfairly denying him work. Judge Levy, presiding, determined that the agreement was related to bona fide labor unions, thereby qualifying for an exemption under the Anti-Trust Act. The court emphasized that the challenged clauses were crucial for stabilizing the industry, protecting labor interests, and implementing a "share-the-work" plan. Ultimately, the court, exercising its discretion and finding the plaintiff's arguments insufficient and not in the public interest, granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Declaratory JudgmentAnti-Trust LawDonnelly ActLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementContractor DesignationIndustrial StabilizationMonopolyShare-the-Work PlanEmployer Associations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanley v. Boland

The International Railway Company sought a declaratory judgment and a temporary injunction against the New York State Labor Relations Board, challenging the Board's jurisdiction to order two elections among its employees. The company contended that the petition filed by the Transport Workers Union, Local 162, was insufficient to establish a real controversy concerning representation. The Board had ordered elections to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and representation between the Transport Workers Union and the Frontier Bus and Street Car Union. Justice Russell denied the temporary injunction, ruling that there was no substantial question of the Board's jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court emphasized that any alleged errors in the Board's proceedings should be reviewed in connection with a final order under section 706 of the Labor Relations Act, rather than through an action for a declaratory judgment.

Labor RelationsBargaining UnitUnion ElectionsDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionJurisdiction DisputeNew York Labor LawStatutory InterpretationInterlocutory OrdersCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 20,494 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