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

League City v. W. R. Flora & Sons, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction granted against the City of League City (appellant) for enforcing Ordinance No. 41. Appellees W. R. Flora & Sons, Inc., a top soil, sand, and fill dirt vendor, and Earl Turner, a property owner, challenged the ordinance which imposed a 6500-pound load limit on certain roads, effectively denying them access to Turner's property for their business. The trial court found the ordinance arbitrary, discriminatory, and oppressive, causing irreparable harm to the appellees' property rights and business. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient evidence of probable right and probable injury due to the ordinance's impact on property access and its discriminatory nature.

injunctionpenal ordinanceproperty rightsaccess rightspolice powerdiscriminationtemporary injunctionTexas lawroad restrictionscommercial business
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Blyer v. STATEN ISLAND CABLE LLC.

Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, sought a preliminary injunction against respondents Time Warner Cable and Local 3. The injunction aimed to prevent the enforcement of Section 7 of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which the petitioner argued constituted an improper 'union signatory' agreement, violating Section 8(e) of the NLRA. This section limited Time Warner's ability to subcontract work only to companies that had agreements with Local 3. The court found reasonable cause to believe that Section 7 had an improper secondary purpose, dictating the labor policies of non-signatory entities like Advantage Cable, rather than genuinely preserving work for the bargaining unit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the contested provisions of Section 7 of the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion Signatory AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionNLRA Section 8(e)NLRA Section 10(l)Work PreservationSecondary ObjectiveSubcontractingLabor Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

City of El Cenizo v. Texas

This case involves multiple Texas cities, counties, and organizations challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), a state law concerning immigration enforcement by local governmental entities. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions to prevent the law from taking effect. The Court partially granted the injunction, finding certain provisions likely preempted by federal law or in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, mandatory enforcement assistance, the endorsement prohibition, policies that 'materially limit' immigration enforcement, and mandatory compliance with ICE detainer requests were enjoined. Other provisions, like immigration status inquiries during lawful detentions, were not enjoined at this stage.

Immigration EnforcementSenate Bill 4Preliminary InjunctionFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseFirst AmendmentViewpoint DiscriminationVagueness DoctrineDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
128
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamestown Sterling Corp. v. United Furniture Workers of America

The case involves Jamestown Sterling Corporation and nonunion employees seeking an injunction against the United Furniture Workers of America union to stop picketing during a labor dispute. Plaintiffs alleged illegal picketing, denial of access to the plant, and incidents of violence, asserting that public officers failed to provide adequate protection. Judge William B. Lawless found that while some scuffles occurred, the plaintiffs failed to prove systematic unlawful acts or the inability of law enforcement to control the situation. The court concluded that the picketing was largely peaceful, with isolated incidents not warranting an injunction. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was denied.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionUnionEmployer RightsEmployee RightsFreedom of SpeechLabor LawNew York Civil Practice ActIndustrial Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yost v. Justin Belt Co.

This case involves consolidated appeals regarding a declaratory judgment and a temporary injunction. The appellants are Joe Yost, Roger E. Souder, and Tony Lama Company, Inc., while the appellees are Justin Belt Company, Inc., and H. J. Justin & Sons, Inc. The core dispute centers on the enforceability of a contract containing restrictive covenants, specifically agreements not to compete in the boot business and not to employ each other's personnel. The court found the non-compete clause to be an unreasonable restraint of trade and against public policy because it was not ancillary to a transfer of goodwill or an existing employment contract. Consequently, the court ruled that the illegality of this consideration vitiated the entire contract, rendering it unenforceable. While the contract itself was declared void, the court modified a temporary injunction, affirming restraints on Yost, Souder, and Tony Lama Company from soliciting or encouraging Justin employees to leave, but reversing the injunction that prevented Souder from engaging in the boot business. The judgment related to declaratory relief was reversed, and the contract was declared void.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-Compete AgreementTrade SecretsTemporary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractContract EnforcementSolicitation of EmployeesEquity
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 2,429 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