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

Gallentine v. Housing Authority

Berlinsia Gallentine, a black female, sued the Housing Authority of the City of Port Arthur, Texas, and its Executive Director, Seledenio Quesada, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. Gallentine claims Quesada discriminated against her by promoting a Hispanic employee, Paula Watts, giving Watts a lighter caseload, and creating a hostile work environment. The court dismissed Gallentine's Title VII claims against Quesada individually and her independent § 1981 claims, finding Quesada was not an 'employer' under Title VII and that § 1981 claims against state actors must be pursued through § 1983. However, the court allowed Gallentine's Title VII retaliation claim against the Housing Authority (based on a post-EEOC demotion), her § 1983 discrimination and retaliation claims against the Housing Authority, and her § 1983 discrimination claim against Quesada in his individual capacity to proceed. The court applied a four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and rejected Quesada's qualified immunity defense for the discrimination claim at this stage, but dismissed the § 1983 retaliation claim against Quesada for lack of personal involvement in the post-EEOC actions.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Employment LawHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissRacial DiscriminationSupervisory Liability
References
261
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. 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. 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. 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

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2016

McLaurin v. Waffle House, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sharon Smith McLaurin, Cottrell McLaurin, and Toni Lewis Kelly suing Waffle House, Inc. for racial discrimination in public accommodation, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, assault and battery, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs, who are African-American, allege they were denied service and harassed by a waitress, Brittany Campbell, at a Waffle House in Baytown, Texas, on January 22, 2012. The waitress allegedly reserved a booth for a group of motorcyclists, including her father, and referred to the plaintiffs as "you people." The court granted Waffle House's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of racial discrimination, false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or negligent hiring, and that injunctive and declaratory relief were not warranted.

DiscriminationPublic AccommodationRace DiscriminationCivil Rights ActSummary JudgmentFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent HiringAssault and BatteryDeclaratory Relief
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nickels v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns the legality of the New York City Housing Authority's (Housing Authority) vote to involuntarily transfer its police officers to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under Civil Service Law § 70 (2). The petitioner, Timothy L. Nickels, representing Housing Police officers, sought to void this transfer and enjoin the Housing Authority, arguing it lacked legal authorization and would harm officers' contractual benefits, including pension and workers' compensation. The court examined whether the Housing Authority constitutes a 'civil division of the state' under Civil Service Law § 70 (2) and its legislative history, concluding that public authorities are excluded. It also determined that legislative action is required to protect employees' constitutionally guaranteed pension and seniority rights, which would be impaired by the proposed merger without such authorization. Consequently, the court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the involuntary transfers and the dissemination of officers' payroll information, and directing the return of any such documentation.

Civil Service LawPublic AuthoritiesPolice TransferPension RightsConstitutional LawLegislative IntentInter-agency MergerCivil Division of StatePublic Employee BenefitsInjunctive Relief
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. Lara's lease was terminated due to alleged criminal activity, and the housing authority obtained an eviction judgment from a justice court. The county court, however, dismissed the case, finding the housing authority's termination notice defective under federal regulations. On appeal, the housing authority contended the notice was adequate or that Lara had actual knowledge of the lease termination. The appellate court determined that while the notice was indeed defective, such deficiencies were not jurisdictional and the trial court erred by dismissing the action rather than abating it for proper notice. The case was reversed and remanded with instructions to abate the underlying action until sufficient notice is provided.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationPublic Housing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandAbatement
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 3,009 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