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

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted to the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) regarding damages to PG&E's gas pipeline during a drainage excavation project. The court affirmed summary judgment on PG&E's negligence and strict liability claims, concluding that HCFCD's immunity was not waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act because the damage was caused by an independent contractor. Summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims was also affirmed, as PG&E was not deemed an intended third-party beneficiary. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the inverse condemnation claim, dismissing it without prejudice due to the trial court's lack of exclusive jurisdiction, which lies with Harris County Courts at Law.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary Judgment
References
50
Case No. 01-02-01056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

PG&E Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District & Ramex Construction Co., Inc.

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). PG&E sought damages for pipeline displacement caused by HCFCD's drainage excavation project. The court determined that the Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive HCFCD's sovereign immunity for tort claims, as the damage was caused by an independent contractor. While the Texas Water Code waived immunity for breach of contract, PG&E was not an intended third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, it reversed and dismissed without prejudice the inverse condemnation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPipeline DamageDrainage Project
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Residents Against Flooding v. Reinvestment Zone Number Seventeen

The case involves Residents Against Flooding (RAF) and individual plaintiffs suing the City of Houston, Reinvestment Zone Number Seventeen (TIRZ 17), and the Memorial City Redevelopment Authority. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants' drainage and development policies in TIRZ 17 caused increased flooding in their residential neighborhoods, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Specifically, they claimed defendants diverted stormwater, approved developments without sufficient mitigation, and postponed residential flood relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and immunity. The Court dismissed the state-created-danger claims, found federal and state takings claims not ripe, and concluded that all Section 1983 claims were time-barred. Additionally, the Court found the Zone not a suable entity and dismissed claims based on governmental immunity, ultimately granting all motions to dismiss.

Municipal LiabilityFlood ControlProperty RightsConstitutional LawDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefDue ProcessFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEleventh Amendment
References
232
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riegert Apartments Corp. v. Planning Board of Clarkstown

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The board required the petitioner to pay money in lieu of land as a condition for obtaining site plan approval to erect an apartment complex. Petitioner argued that the condition was arbitrary and illegal, contending that former owners had already conveyed land for flood control, which should satisfy the requirement. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, finding that the previous land conveyance was for drainage and flood control, not for park or recreational purposes as required by Town Law § 277(1). The court also affirmed that the planning board had the authority under Town Law § 274-a to impose such a condition for site plan approvals. Consequently, the court denied the application in its entirety and dismissed the petition.

ZoningSite Plan ApprovalMoney in Lieu of LandTown LawCPLR Article 78Planning BoardLand UseRecreational LandFlood ControlRestrictive Covenants
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2000

Taub v. Harris County Flood Control District

This case involves an appeal by Henry J.N. Taub from an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his Petition for Bill of Review. Taub filed a bill of review seeking to rescind or modify a 1975 judgment partitioning property in Harris County, alleging breach of contract and fraud by Harris County Flood Control District. The trial court granted the County and District's plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. The appellate court examined whether Texas Local Government Code section 89.004 constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, ultimately concluding it does not, but rather sets forth a condition precedent to filing suit. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunityTexas Local Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityCondition PrecedentContract DisputeEasementsCondemnation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1999

Concerned Citizens of Valley Stream, Inc. v. Bond

The petitioners appealed a Supreme Court judgment that denied their petition to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream. The Board had conditionally granted Nathan Serota's application for site plan approval. Petitioners contended that this decision violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Board had complied with SEQRA's substantive and procedural requirements by identifying environmental concerns, taking a "hard look" at them, and providing a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, specifically addressing issues like flooding, drainage, and increased traffic.

CPLR Article 78SEQRASite Plan ApprovalZoning Board of AppealsEnvironmental ReviewNassau CountyJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05993
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Trulio v. Village of Ossining

The plaintiff, John A. Trulio, Jr., initiated an action against the Village of Ossining for damages caused by periodic flooding on his property, attributing it to deficiencies in the Village's water drainage system and failure to remove obstructions. The Supreme Court initially denied the Village's motion for summary judgment regarding negligent maintenance and nuisance claims but granted it for trespass and inverse condemnation. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted the Village's motion to dismiss the nuisance claim, deeming it duplicative of the negligent maintenance cause of action. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the negligent maintenance claim, finding the Village had not satisfied its burden to eliminate factual issues regarding maintenance, and also affirmed the dismissal of the trespass and inverse condemnation claims.

Negligent MaintenanceNuisanceTrespassInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentProperty FloodingStorm Drainage SystemMunicipal LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityMinisterial Duty
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery County v. Fuqua

Montgomery County, Texas, brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a suit filed by Carlton Fuqua and Randolph Bowles. The appellees had sued the County and Kipling Oaks Homeowners’ Association over flooding and drainage issues. The County asserted governmental immunity and a statute of limitations defense. The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the statute of limitations and injunction issues. It reversed the trial court's decision regarding the cause of action under article 6702-1 of the County Road and Bridge Act, dismissing that claim with prejudice due to insufficient pleadings for waiver of immunity. However, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for the nuisance cause of action, deeming the pleadings sufficient. The overall decision was to reverse and remand.

Governmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionMotion to DismissCounty Road and Bridge ActNuisance ClaimFlooding and DrainageProperty DamageWaiver of ImmunityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
25
Case No. NO. 09-20-00292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

OHAH, Ltd., D/B/A Oak Haven Apartment Homes v. LNG Builders, LLC, Odom Texas Development, LLC and the City of Shenandoah

Appellant OHAH, Ltd., d/b/a Oak Haven Apartment Homes (Oak Haven) appealed the trial court’s final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees LNG Builders, LLC (LNG), Odom Texas Development, LLC (OTD), and the City of Shenandoah (the City). The dispute concerned an easement and drainage line built by the defendants on Oak Haven’s property. Oak Haven initially sued LNG and OTD for trespass, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleging they had no right to construct a drainage line across its property. The City intervened, claiming an 80-foot utility easement (80’ U.E.) by dedication from a 2000 plat, which it claimed allowed LNG to build the drainage line. The trial court initially denied Oak Haven's temporary injunction, later granted Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment, but then vacated that order and granted summary judgments for LNG, OTD, and the City, and issued a take-nothing judgment against Oak Haven. The Court of Appeals found that the plat language referencing an "80’ U.E." was unclear as to whether it created a new easement for public use or merely marked a pre-existing easement for G.S.U. Even assuming an easement was dedicated, the Court concluded that LNG and OTD are not "public utilities" and their construction of a drainage line for OTD's private property drainage was inconsistent with the scope of a public utility easement, thus exceeding any purported grant. The Court also rejected OTD's and LNG's claims of derivative sovereign immunity, stating that a City permit does not immunize private contractors acting for a private property owner from tort liability. The Court determined the trial court erred in denying Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgments for OTD and LNG on trespass and other claims, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment for the City on non-suited claims. The appellate court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Easement DisputeDrainage LineTrespassSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic UtilitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsConstruction Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Village of Elmsford

The case involves petitioners William and Ronald Baker challenging the Village of Elmsford's decision to demap portions of Vreeland Avenue and River Street, which were intended for use by the Village's Department of Public Works. The Bakers, who own adjacent properties, argued that these roads were not 'useless' because they provided crucial ingress and egress, particularly during periodic flooding, and that the Village failed to conduct an adequate environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Initially, the Supreme Court upheld the Village's actions. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the Village's determination of 'uselessness' was arbitrary and irrational given the documented and essential use of the streets during flood events. The court also found the Village's SEQRA review insufficient, citing a failure to take a 'hard look' at the potential adverse environmental impacts related to traffic and flooding.

Land UseRoad DemappingVillage LawSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewPublic AccessFloodingAppellate ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingArbitrary and Capricious
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 73 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