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

Gress v. Brown

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action alleging that the City and Mayor Byron Brown failed to pay them in accordance with the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. Defendants, including the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA), appealed a judgment that granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, declaring the BFSA lacked authority to freeze their wages. The court rejected defendants' argument that the action was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, thus a four-month statute of limitations did not apply, finding the action primarily sought damages for wage violations. It further affirmed that the BFSA's wage freeze was inapplicable to plaintiffs because their wage increases stemmed from the Living Wage Ordinance, not a collective bargaining agreement, placing them outside the BFSA's authority.

Living Wage OrdinanceWage DisputeClass ActionBuffalo Fiscal Stability AuthorityPublic Authorities LawMunicipal EmployeesWage FreezeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. CA 10-01673
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

GRESS, MARLINO v. BROWN, BYRON

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action against Byron Brown, as Mayor, the City of Buffalo, and the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA). They sought damages alleging violations of the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the BFSA lacked the authority to freeze their wages, and denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the action should have been brought as a CPLR article 78 proceeding and concluded that the BFSA's statutory power to freeze wages did not apply to the plaintiffs because their wage increases were governed by the Living Wage Ordinance, not collective bargaining agreements.

Class ActionWage FreezeLiving Wage OrdinancePublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawSeasonal WorkersEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Markowitz v. Bloomberg

Petitioners, political representatives of various districts and boroughs in the City of New York, sought to vacate a determination by the New York City Fire Department and other city agencies to close firehouses and dissolve fire companies due to fiscal constraints. They alleged inadequate notice, an arbitrary and capricious decision, and violations of the New York State and City Environmental Quality Review Acts (SEQRA/CEQR). The court found the respondents' decision was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate environmental laws, categorizing the closures as 'Type II' actions under SEQRA, thus exempt from extensive environmental review. However, the court did identify a failure by respondents to provide proper written notice to specific community entities concerning the closing of Engine Company 261, as mandated by the New York City Charter 487(a). Despite this procedural flaw, the court denied injunctive relief to restore the unit, concluding that the omission was inadvertent and did not prejudice the public's opportunity for protest and debate.

Fiscal CrisisFire DepartmentFirehouse ClosuresPublic SafetyEnvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)New York City CharterNotice RequirementsInjunctive ReliefAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Texas Health & Human Services Commission v. El Paso County Hospital District

This opinion addresses an appeal in a long-standing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement rates for Texas hospitals. Fourteen hospitals initially challenged the Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) use of a "February 28 cutoff" in calculating base-year claims data, arguing it unlawfully lowered their reimbursement rates. The Texas Supreme Court previously ruled the cutoff invalid and remanded the case. On remand, the district court issued an injunction against applying the cutoff for fiscal years 2002 through 2009. This appellate court reversed and vacated the injunction for fiscal years 2002-2007, citing sovereign immunity, but affirmed it for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, concluding that the supreme court's judgment applies to these later periods.

Medicaid ReimbursementRate-setting methodologyAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJudicial ReviewTexas HospitalsHealth and Human Services CommissionBase-year Claims Data
References
42
Case No. 03-09-00318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Thomas Suehs, Commissioner v. El Paso County Hospital District D/B/A R. E. Thomason General Hospital Conroe Hospital Corporation D/B/A Conroe Regional Medical Center Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center Sunbelt Regional Medical Center, Inc.

This appeal concerns a long-standing dispute over Medicaid reimbursement rates. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) challenged a district court's injunction requiring it to recalculate reimbursement rates for hospitals dating back to state fiscal year 2002, after the Texas Supreme Court previously deemed HHSC's rate-setting methodology (the 'February 28 cutoff' rule) invalid. The Court of Appeals found that while the Supreme Court's judgment applied to rates from fiscal year 2008 forward, extending the injunction to recalculate rates for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 constituted additional, retroactive relief barred by sovereign immunity and inconsistent with HHSC's own rules. Therefore, the court reversed and vacated the injunction for 2002-2007 while affirming it for 2008 and 2009.

Medicaid ReimbursementAdministrative LawAPA ViolationsRate-Setting MethodologySovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefJudicial ReviewRetroactive ApplicationProspective ApplicationHealthcare Law
References
42
Case No. 03-98-00533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an "additional tax" after its merger, claiming the tax was unconstitutional as it resulted in fiscal year taxpayers paying tax on earned surplus over a longer period than calendar year taxpayers upon ceasing business. The district court sided with Bealls. However, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the additional tax. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state purposes of revenue generation and mitigating fiscal effects of corporate reorganizations, and it did not violate equal protection, equal and uniform taxation, or the federal commerce clause. The court determined the tax applied even-handedly based on previously untaxed earned surplus and Bealls had a substantial nexus with Texas.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rylander v. 3 Beall Bros. 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an additional tax, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated equal protection, uniform taxation, and the federal commerce clause. Bealls claimed the tax disproportionately affected fiscal year taxpayers by taxing them for a longer period upon corporate termination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bealls. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the additional tax was constitutional. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state interests in revenue generation and mitigating corporate reorganizations, and that it applied equally within its class without violating the commerce clause.

Tax LawFranchise TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseFiscal Year TaxpayerCorporate ReorganizationEarned SurplusStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1987

Spinowitz v. Herrity

Plaintiffs, members of Local 101 of the Transport Workers Union of America, sued three officers of Local 101 seeking to inspect financial records under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c). They alleged a steady decline in union assets and questioned specific expense increases in LM-2 reports for fiscal years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86, including meeting expenses, conventions, professional fees, and officer disbursements. The court found "just cause" for inquiry into these specific areas, granting a preliminary injunction to allow inspection and copying of relevant records. However, the court denied disclosure for contract negotiation expenses and all expenses for fiscal year 1986-87, stating plaintiffs failed to meet the minimal "just cause" standard for those items. The court emphasized that the right to inspect does not extend to "wholesale random audits" for campaign material.

Union Financial RecordsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Just Cause StandardPreliminary InjunctionUnion ElectionsFinancial TransparencyBooks and Records InspectionLocal 101 Transport Workers UnionLM-2 ReportsDisclosure Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crane v. Napolitano

The case involves a challenge by ICE Agent Plaintiffs and the State of Mississippi against directives issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically the Morton Memorandum and the Napolitano Directive, which concern prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement and deferred action for certain undocumented immigrants (DACA). Plaintiffs argued that these directives compel them to violate federal statutes and their oaths of office, and impose fiscal costs on the state. The Court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and improper venue. The Court granted the motion to dismiss for the State of Mississippi due to speculative fiscal injury and for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to employment authorization due to lack of personal harm. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, finding they had standing due to the threat of adverse employment action for non-compliance. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

Immigration LawProsecutorial DiscretionDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Standing (Law)Motion to DismissFederal Court JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)Employment Authorization
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State

Justice Smith's concurring opinion emphasizes that New York State's constitutional requirement for a "sound basic education" now necessitates the opportunity for a high school education that prepares students for competitive employment and higher education, moving beyond rudimentary skills. The opinion critically analyzes the State's existing 54-formula system for distributing education aid, specifically highlighting its failure to adequately fund high-need districts like New York City due to its inherent complexity and susceptibility to political manipulation. It asserts that the Regents Learning Standards, while rigorous, constitute the minimum skills necessary for productive citizenship, and that the State bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure all students have the opportunity to meet these standards. Justice Smith concludes that the current funding formulas are incompatible with the Legislature's duty to provide a sound education to New York City students, advocating for a statewide reform that eliminates the existing formula for New York City, determines the actual costs required for a sound basic education across all districts, and guarantees sufficient funding for every student.

Education FundingSound Basic EducationFiscal EquityState Aid FormulasRegents Learning StandardsHigh School EducationConstitutional MandateEducational PolicySchool Finance ReformNew York City Schools
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 179 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