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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06588 [210 AD3d 1496]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2022

Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Bradford Green initiated an action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall off an A-frame ladder while working on a car wash overhead door. The defendants, Evergreen Family Limited Partnership, moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's activity was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted plaintiff's motion on the 14th affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a repair, and the adequacy of the safety device provided, thus precluding a sole proximate cause defense as a matter of law.

Ladder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety EquipmentAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyMaintenance vs. RepairPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Greene

Thurmon B. Greene appealed a Chancery Court decree dismissing his divorce suit against Rose C. Greene. The Chancellor dismissed the suit primarily on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to complainant's non-residence in Shelby County, Tennessee, and failure to prove cruel and inhuman treatment or desertion. The appellate court disagreed with the Chancellor's finding on jurisdiction, holding that Greene had established domicile in Memphis, Tennessee. The court also sustained the complainant's objection to a $50 fee for the amicus curiae, deeming it an abuse of discretion given the presence of a Divorce Proctor. The appellate court reversed the Chancellor's ruling on jurisdiction and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including obtaining the defendant's testimony and additional corroborating evidence for the grounds of divorce.

DivorceDomicileJurisdictionRemandCruel and Inhuman TreatmentDesertionAmicus CuriaeDivorce ProctorAppellate ProcedureEvidence
References
21
Case No. 153 AD3d 1621
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Brooks v. Greene

This case involves an appeal by Halbert Brooks, Jr. (father) from a Family Court order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to Paula Greene (mother) and mandated supervised overnight visitation for the father. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the appeal concerning supervised visitation as moot because subsequent orders allowed unsupervised visitation. However, the appeal was not moot regarding the custody issues. The Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the father's recusal motion against the Judge and his motion to remove the Attorney for the Child, finding no substantiated allegations of bias in either instance.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsRecusal MotionAttorney for the ChildMootness DoctrineJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewBias AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 6
References
10
Case No. 03-14-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re George Green and Garlan Green

The provided legal text is an Appellants' Brief filed by George Green and Garlan Green against the Port of Call Homeowners Association and its directors. They are appealing an order from the 33rd Judicial District Court of Llano County, Texas, to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin. The Appellants challenge the trial court's order, which granted injunctive relief, extended the period for record production, and imposed sanctions against them. They argue that the order was issued with inadequate notice, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech, and improperly modified a prior order without sufficient evidence. The original dispute arose from the Appellants' attempts to review HOA financial records due to alleged misuse of funds.

Appellate LawCivil ProcedureInjunctive ReliefSanctionsFree SpeechPrior RestraintHomeowners AssociationProperty RightsDiscovery DisputesDue Process
References
0
Case No. 03-24-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2025

Sandra Greene// City of Austin v. City of Austin// Cross-Appellee, Sandra Greene

Sandra Greene sued the City of Austin under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) alleging discrimination and retaliation. While a jury found retaliation and awarded damages, the trial court later disregarded some damage findings. On appeal, the City argued that Greene failed to establish a materially adverse employment action, a jurisdictional prerequisite for a TCHRA retaliation claim. The appellate court meticulously reviewed twelve alleged adverse employment actions, concluding that none met the objective standard of a 'materially adverse employment action' under TCHRA. Consequently, the court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Greene's retaliation claim, reversed the judgment, and dismissed the claim.

RetaliationDiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSovereign ImmunityEmployment LawAdverse Employment ActionEEOC ChargePerformance ReviewReclassificationPay Grade
References
27
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. NO. 14-18-00043-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2020

San Jacinto River Authority v. Reba Ogletree

Homeowners, whose properties flooded after water was released from Lake Conroe in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, sued the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and the Texas Water Development Board in a Harris County district court. They asserted inverse condemnation claims and due process violations. SJRA and the Texas Water Board claimed governmental immunity. The trial court denied SJRA’s motion to dismiss but granted the Texas Water Board’s motion. On interlocutory cross-appeals, the appellate court concluded the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the constitutional inverse condemnation and due process claims, as Harris County civil courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction over such inverse condemnation claims. The court affirmed the dismissal against the Texas Water Board and reversed the order denying SJRA’s plea, rendering judgment dismissing the homeowners’ claims against SJRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Inverse CondemnationGovernmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDue Process ClaimsHurricane HarveyLake Conroe DamEminent DomainAppellate StayTrial Court JurisdictionTexas Government Code
References
48
Case No. 14-05-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2006

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Brenda Green, Beneficiary of Robert Green

This worker's compensation case involved an appeal by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company against a judgment awarding death benefits to Brenda Green, the widow of Robert Green. Green was fatally shot at his workplace, Cargo Airport Services, in what appeared to be a robbery. Lumbermens contended that Green's death was not compensable and fell under the 'personal animosity exception' of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court, referencing the Nasser precedent, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Green's death occurred within the course and scope of his employment. The court concluded that the personal animosity exception did not apply, as the incident arose in the workplace and was incidental to an inferred duty of employment. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the death benefits award was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyThird-Party AssaultWorkplace InjuryTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Young

This case concerns an appeal by attorneys Liza Greene and Corey Mills against a sanctions order issued by a family court. The sanctions were imposed following a 'Joint Motion to Enforce Agreed Order Lifting Stay and Request for Additional Relief' filed in bankruptcy court, primarily targeting attorney Patsy Young for allegedly hindering Ronald Repine's release from jail for child support contempt. The family court sanctioned Greene and Mills not only under Rule 13, as originally sought by Young, but also based on its inherent power, Chapter 10, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed, citing false statements and causing Young's arrest. The appellate court reversed and rendered, finding that the appellants lacked proper notice for sanctions under Chapter 10, inherent power, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed. Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the family court lacked jurisdiction to impose Rule 13 sanctions concerning a motion filed in federal bankruptcy court.

SanctionsAttorney EthicsJurisdictionDue ProcessTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13Bankruptcy LawFamily LawChild Support EnforcementContemptAppellate Review
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,149 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