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. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor Hous. Auth. v. Shorts

The Taylor Housing Authority (THA) appealed a temporary injunction and a denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning counterclaims from Taylor Sunset Housing Development (TSHD) and Mallard Run Housing Development (MRHD). THA initially sued TSHD, MRHD, and Steve A. Shorts over ownership and operational control of public housing projects, alleging fraudulent schemes. MRHD counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference, seeking damages and specific performance for property title. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction which prevented THA from interfering with TSHD and MRHD's operations, upholding the status quo. However, the court partially reversed the jurisdictional order, ruling that governmental immunity barred MRHD's claims for specific performance to convey title, while allowing counterclaims for monetary relief to proceed as potential offsets against THA's original monetary claims.

Governmental ImmunityTemporary InjunctionPlea to JurisdictionHousing AuthorityNonprofit CorporationCorporate GovernanceBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelTortious InterferenceSpecific Performance
References
34
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1999

Dews v. Town of Sunnyvale, Tex.

The case involves a challenge to the Town of Sunnyvale, Texas's zoning and planning practices, which allegedly discriminate against minority families by excluding multi-family and affordable housing. Plaintiffs Mary Dews, Hammer-Smith Construction Co., Inc., and The Walker Project, Inc. sued the Town of Sunnyvale under the Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights Acts. The court found that Sunnyvale's one-acre zoning ordinance, ban on apartments, and refusal to approve a planned development application had a discriminatory effect and purpose on African-Americans, perpetuating segregation. The Town's justifications were deemed pretextual. The court granted injunctive relief, enjoining Sunnyvale from its current discriminatory practices and ordering the adoption of new policies to promote affordable housing and remedy past exclusionary actions. Costs and attorneys' fees were also awarded to the plaintiffs.

Housing DiscriminationFair Housing ActZoning OrdinancesRacial SegregationCivil RightsDiscriminatory IntentDisparate ImpactAffordable HousingMulti-family HousingSingle-family Housing
References
35
Case No. No. 36, No. 37
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Estate of Tayshana Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning negligence claims against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for injuries and deaths resulting from intruder attacks in public housing complexes with broken exterior door locks. In both cases, the victims (Ms. Crushshon and Ms. Murphy) were targeted by assailants who gained access through negligently maintained doors. NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the targeted nature of the attacks severed the causal link between its negligence and the harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Scurry and reversed the grant of summary judgment in Murphy, reiterating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. The court emphasized that the risk of intruders harming residents through unsecured doors is precisely the risk that renders a landlord negligent, and that an assailant's intent does not automatically sever the causal chain.

NegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandlord DutyForeseeabilityTargeted AttackSecurity MeasuresBroken Locks
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FARMINGDALE

Plaintiffs, a group of Hispanic individuals, sued the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale alleging discriminatory housing practices under the Fair Housing Act. They contend the Village, through an informal 'Secatogue Avenue Redevelopment Project' (SARP) and its actions surrounding the renovation of a 54-unit apartment building where they resided, caused their displacement and deprived them of affordable housing. Plaintiffs assert both disparate impact and disparate treatment claims, citing disproportionate effects on the Hispanic population, anti-Hispanic sentiment in the community, and procedural deviations by the Village in approving the building's renovation. The Village moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing, no formal redevelopment plan, and no discriminatory animus. The Court denied the Village's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the Village's role in the redevelopment and the existence of discriminatory intent or disproportionate impact.

Fair Housing ActDiscriminatory Housing PracticesDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentSummary Judgment MotionRedevelopment PlanAffordable HousingHispanic PopulationMunicipal Government LiabilityProcedural Deviations
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nickels v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns the legality of the New York City Housing Authority's (Housing Authority) vote to involuntarily transfer its police officers to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under Civil Service Law § 70 (2). The petitioner, Timothy L. Nickels, representing Housing Police officers, sought to void this transfer and enjoin the Housing Authority, arguing it lacked legal authorization and would harm officers' contractual benefits, including pension and workers' compensation. The court examined whether the Housing Authority constitutes a 'civil division of the state' under Civil Service Law § 70 (2) and its legislative history, concluding that public authorities are excluded. It also determined that legislative action is required to protect employees' constitutionally guaranteed pension and seniority rights, which would be impaired by the proposed merger without such authorization. Consequently, the court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the involuntary transfers and the dissemination of officers' payroll information, and directing the return of any such documentation.

Civil Service LawPublic AuthoritiesPolice TransferPension RightsConstitutional LawLegislative IntentInter-agency MergerCivil Division of StatePublic Employee BenefitsInjunctive Relief
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. Lara's lease was terminated due to alleged criminal activity, and the housing authority obtained an eviction judgment from a justice court. The county court, however, dismissed the case, finding the housing authority's termination notice defective under federal regulations. On appeal, the housing authority contended the notice was adequate or that Lara had actual knowledge of the lease termination. The appellate court determined that while the notice was indeed defective, such deficiencies were not jurisdictional and the trial court erred by dismissing the action rather than abating it for proper notice. The case was reversed and remanded with instructions to abate the underlying action until sufficient notice is provided.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationPublic Housing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandAbatement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.H.A. General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

A.H.A. General Contracting, Inc. (respondent) sued New York City Housing Authority (appellant) for damages related to extra work under two construction contracts. Respondent claimed that the Housing Authority's misconduct entitled it to recover despite its own noncompliance with contractual notice and reporting requirements for extra work. The court determined that these requirements were conditions precedent to suit, not exculpatory clauses. Finding no factual basis that the Housing Authority's alleged misconduct prevented respondent's compliance, the court concluded that the Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to the Housing Authority and dismissing the complaint was reinstated.

Construction ContractsExtra Work ClaimsNotice RequirementsReporting RequirementsConditions PrecedentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPublic Works ProjectsContractual Obligations
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,678 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