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

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. 13-05-178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2006

Eog Resources, Inc. v. Wagner & Brown, Ltd.

This case concerns a subsurface boundary dispute involving oil and gas interests between EOG Resources, Inc. (Appellant) and Wagner & Brown, Ltd. (Appellee). The central issue was the interpretation of the phrase "100 feet below the deepest producing interval as obtained in the test well" found in a Farmout Agreement and a Correction Assignment. EOG argued this referred to an entire geological formation, implying a variable depth, while W&B contended it referred to a specific vertical depth from the original test well. The trial court granted summary judgment for W&B, limiting EOG's interest to depths above 9,829 feet. The appellate court affirmed, finding the contract unambiguous and upholding the trial court's construction. The court also upheld the denial of attorney fees to W&B, as the statutory claim for such fees was not properly before the trial court.

Oil and Gas InterestsSubsurface Boundary DisputeContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentFarmout AgreementCorrection AssignmentMineral RightsTexas LawAppellate ReviewAttorney Fees
References
31
Case No. ADJ9095473
Regular
Mar 24, 2023

EVAN MOORE vs. CLEVELAND BROWNS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, GREEN BAY PACKERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted petitions for reconsideration filed by the Cleveland Browns and Great Divide Insurance Company. The Board's prior decision finding California jurisdiction based on a contract of hire formed in California was vacated. The Board determined the existing record was insufficient to definitively establish the location of contract formation and the agent's authority. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to develop the record on jurisdiction, contract formation, and potential exemptions.

California jurisdictioncontract of hirereconsiderationpetitionfindings of factoral contractfederal preemptionagency authorityintegration clauseliability exemptions
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00200 [179 AD3d 1272]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Chedeville, Inc.

Claimant Kanica Jones appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her application for Board review. The Board found her counsel's application form RB-89 incomplete, specifically concerning question 15 about objections made at the hearing. Additionally, Jones's pro se application was rejected for not being in the proper format and for untimeliness. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that adherence to application completeness and format requirements is critical and that prejudice does not need to be shown for non-compliance. The court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion in denying both applications for review.

Appellate DivisionBoard ReviewProcedural DenialForm RB-89 Non-complianceCompleteness RequirementFraud AllegationTimeliness of FilingPro Se SubmissionsAdministrative ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. 03-08-00793-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Public Utility Commission of Texas And Electric Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, and Victoria State of Texas And Texas Industrial Energy Consumers

This case involves an administrative appeal challenging a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order that approved Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT)'s formation transactions, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. The district court reversed the PUC order, finding it exceeded statutory authority by granting a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to ETT and erred in denying municipalities' expenses. The appeals court affirmed the district court's remand for reconsideration of municipalities' expenses, but reversed the remainder of the district court's judgment, ultimately affirming the PUC's final order concerning the CCN grant and formation transactions.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionElectric Transmission Texas, LLCCertificate of Convenience and NecessityPublic Utility Regulatory ActStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSubstantial Evidence ReviewRatemaking Proceeding Expenses
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Public Utility Commission v. Cities of Harlingen

This case involves an appeal by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT) against a district court's judgment. The district court had reversed a PUC order approving ETT's application for formation, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. This appellate court holds that the PUC acted within its statutory authority in granting a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to ETT and approving the transfer of rights, also finding substantial evidence for ETT's formation transactions. However, the court affirmed the district court's remand of the case to the Commission for reconsideration of expense reimbursement for intervening municipalities, concluding the Commission erred in denying their expenses based on an incorrect statutory interpretation. The final judgment is a mixed decision.

Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA)Electric UtilityCertificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN)Transmission-Only UtilityRate-making ProceedingExpense ReimbursementStatutory ConstructionAdministrative AppealDue ProcessSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Kogan

Plaintiffs, two white salespersons (Fernandez and Leggette), sued their former employers, George and Barbara Kogan and Kogan and Company, alleging retaliatory discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state-law breach of contract claims. They claimed they were fired for supporting minority employees who faced discriminatory treatment by the Kogans. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claims, citing the Supreme Court's Patterson v. McLean Credit Union decision, which limited Section 1981's scope to contract formation and enforcement, not post-formation conduct like retaliatory discharge. Consequently, with the federal claims dismissed, the court declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Retaliatory DischargeCivil Rights Act of 1866Contract FormationEmployment LawFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Supreme Court RulingsPost-Contract Conduct
References
22
Case No. 07-17-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC v. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C.

The case involves a dispute over an Overriding Royalty Interest (ORRI) in oil and gas production from the Gracie 117-1H well in Hemphill County, Texas. Pima Oil and Gas, L.L.C. (assignee) sued Jones Energy, Inc. and Jones Energy Holdings, LLC (operator, assignor's successor) for failing to pay ORRI on production from the horizontal well. The core issue was the interpretation of an "Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest" and a related "Retainer Agreement," specifically whether an exception clause excluded production from a particular formation interval (Granite Wash A interval) or only from existing vertical wellbores. The trial court granted summary judgment to Pima. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed this decision, ruling that the ORRI did not burden production from the A interval of the Granite Wash formation. The appellate court rendered judgment that the ORRI does not apply to the A interval production and a "take nothing" judgment for Pima's monetary claims, while remanding for a determination of production from other intervals.

Contract InterpretationOverriding Royalty InterestOil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGrammatical InterpretationProducing ZonesHorizontal WellsMineral RightsTexas Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

The Court dismissed several appeals on its own motion. An appeal from a June 7, 1993 Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which affirmed a November 12, 1991 decision, was dismissed because the appellant was not an aggrieved party under CPLR 5511. Other appeals, specifically from the June 7, 1993 decision affirming an April 25, 1992 decision and the August 19, 1993 decision, were also dismissed because the Appellate Division order did not constitute a final determination of the proceeding within the constitutional meaning. Additionally, a motion for reargument was denied.

Appeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCPLR 5511Non-Final OrderMotion for Reargument DeniedAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1993

Claim of Dukes v. Capitol Formation, Inc.

A claimant was injured in an automobile accident in 1971 while on a business trip, resulting in a compensable injury. Over the next two decades, numerous hearings were held regarding medical bill payments and related compensation issues. The parties eventually entered into a stipulated settlement, which included a $75,000 lump-sum payment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-b). The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claimant’s request to set aside this stipulation, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied by the Board. The appeals court dismissed the appeal of the Board’s June 7, 1993 decision as untimely, and affirmed the Board’s August 19, 1993 decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationStipulated SettlementLump-Sum SettlementReconsiderationUntimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionFraudCollusionMistakeTotal Disability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 80 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