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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Housing Agency v. Orton

William T. Orton sued federal housing agencies for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a dormitory in Orange, Texas, where he was employed as a guard. He alleged negligence by the defendants in failing to maintain safe, well-lit steps. The trial court found the Federal Public Housing Authority (FPHA) negligent and awarded Orton $9,500. On appeal, the defendants argued FPHA was not a suable corporate entity and that the United States Housing Authority (USHA) was a separate, non-liable entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that FPHA and USHA were legally the same corporate agency, subject to tort suits, and that the operation of the dormitory was a corporate function. The court also rejected other appellant arguments regarding jurisdiction, compensation acts, court costs, and the damages award.

Personal InjuryGovernment LiabilityFederal AgenciesNegligencePremises LiabilitySovereign ImmunityCorporate EntityStatutory InterpretationExecutive OrderWartime Construction
References
28
Case No. 05 Civ. 5636(SHS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2005

Clearing House Ass'n, LLC v. Spitzer

The Clearing House Association, L.L.C. sued Eliot Spitzer, the Attorney General of New York, seeking to enjoin his office from investigating and bringing enforcement actions against its member national banks regarding residential mortgage lending practices. The core argument was that the Attorney General's actions infringed on the exclusive visitorial powers of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) under the National Bank Act. Building on a related consolidated case (OCC v. Spitzer), this court addressed whether the Attorney General could pursue parens patriae actions under the federal Fair Housing Act. The court ruled that such parens patriae actions constitute prohibited visitorial authority not expressly authorized by the Fair Housing Act against national banks. Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctive relief, preventing the New York State Attorney General from instituting judicial actions based on parens patriae authority to enforce the Fair Housing Act's fair lending provisions against the Clearing House's national bank members.

Federal PreemptionNational Bank ActFair Housing ActVisitorial PowersParens PatriaeInjunctive ReliefMortgage LendingDiscriminationState Attorney GeneralFederal Banking Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Housing Authority of Crystal City v. Lopez

Ricardo Lopez sued the Housing Authority of the City of Crystal City, Texas, alleging retaliatory discrimination under the Whistleblower Act after reporting potential conflicts of interest and violations to HUD. The trial court awarded Mr. Lopez damages for past lost earnings, future lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Housing Authority challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for all awards. The appellate court reversed the awards for future lost earning capacity and mental anguish, reduced the past lost earnings award, and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest. However, the court affirmed the jury's finding of retaliation and malice, upholding the award for exemplary damages.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DiscriminationLost EarningsMental AnguishExemplary DamagesMalicePublic EmployeeHousing AuthorityEmployment LawTexas Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Manhattan Valley Neighbors for Permanent Housing For Homeless v. Koch

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition brought by petitioners challenging a Board of Estimate decision. Petitioners sought to annul the Board's approval of a plan to rehabilitate city-owned buildings in Manhattan for transitional housing for approximately 71 homeless families, proposing instead permanent housing. They contended the project required an environmental impact statement (EIS) due to the transitional nature of the residency. The court found that the city properly classified the project as a Type II action, exempt from EIS requirements under SEQRA and CEQR, as it involved replacement in kind and not new construction. The court concluded that the Board of Estimate did not act illegally or arbitrarily in exempting the project from an EIS.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawArticle 78 PetitionSEQRACEQRTransitional HousingHomelessnessUrban DevelopmentType II ActionJudicial Review
References
5
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

Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authority

This case involves a lawsuit brought by individual migrant farm workers and the United Farmworkers of America (UFW) against the Floydada Housing Authority and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Plaintiffs allege that the Floydada Housing Authority operates substandard farm labor housing, violating the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Floydada Housing Authority filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing it's not a 'person' under AWPA, an employment relationship is required for liability, and the UFW lacks standing. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, finding the Authority is a 'person' under AWPA, no employment relationship is necessary, and the UFW has standing. The District Judge adopted this recommendation, denying the motion to dismiss.

Migrant WorkersAgricultural HousingFair Housing ActAWPAMotion to DismissStandingStatutory InterpretationPublic CorporationsEmployment RelationshipHousing Standards
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,339 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