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. 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. 2019 NY Slip Op 00702
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

A.L. v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Plaintiff Helena C., on behalf of her infant child A.L., appealed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in a negligence case concerning lead poisoning. A.L., who resided in a NYCHA apartment since birth in 1999, was diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels in 2002-2003. Plaintiff testified about chipped and peeling paint in the apartment and NYCHA's own records indicated paint issues. The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court erred by concluding that NYCHA demonstrated no hazardous condition existed and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact for trial. The court also clarified the interpretation of "erected" under Local Law 1 and held that NYCHA failed to meet its burden for summary judgment, citing sufficient circumstantial evidence, including A.L.'s elevated blood lead levels and expert testimony, to create a triable issue of fact regarding a hazardous lead-based paint condition in the apartment.

Lead poisoningTenant negligenceSummary judgmentHazardous conditionLocal Law 1New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate reviewCircumstantial evidenceBlood lead levelsInfant plaintiff
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

Cicalo v. New York City Housing & Development Administration

Plaintiffs, sponsors of the Harbour Village limited-profit cooperative housing project in Brooklyn, sought a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction to compel New York City defendants to take actions, including issuing a condemnation certificate, to facilitate the project. The project, approved by the Board of Estimate in 1971, stalled due to the Mayor's failure to issue the certificate, which was deemed a discretionary act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Mayor's action was discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore could not be compelled by the court. The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as no enforceable contract existed given the Mayor's unexercised discretion and the court's lack of power to compel legislative or executive action.

Declaratory JudgmentMandatory InjunctionSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActCondemnation ProceedingsPrivate Housing Finance LawNew York City CharterAdministrative Code
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03063
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2020

Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Plaintiff Carson Williams sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Liro Program, and Corbex, Inc. after a slip and fall incident caused by a ceiling leak at Castle Hill Houses. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision, denying NYCHA's motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint against them. The appellate court found that factual issues existed regarding NYCHA's potential long-standing notice of the leak condition, based on a witness affidavit and photographic evidence. However, the dismissal of claims against Liro and Corbex was affirmed, as they were contractors and not landowners, and therefore did not owe a direct duty to the plaintiff.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceLandowner LiabilityContractor LiabilityNotice of DefectAffidavit SufficiencyRoutine Inspection
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams

Cathie Williams sued her employer, Waffle House, Inc., for sexual harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and negligent supervision/retention after enduring offensive comments and physical contact from a coworker, Eddie Davis. Despite Williams' complaints to management, the harassment continued, leading to her constructive discharge. A jury found in favor of Williams on both claims, awarding significant damages for the common-law claim. However, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that the TCHRA's specific and tailored anti-harassment remedy is preemptive when negligence is entwined with harassment. The Court held that Williams' common-law claim was based on the same conduct as her TCHRA claim and that allowing it would undermine the Legislature's comprehensive statutory scheme. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to address the statutory sexual harassment issues.

Sexual HarassmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionPreemptionTCHRATexas Supreme CourtHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeJury VerdictCommon Law Tort
References
40
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,357 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