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

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority

Southwest Airlines Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an order issued by the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority had granted a franchise to Texas TGV Consortium, which Southwest sought to challenge. The district court in Travis County dismissed Southwest's petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction and standing because no statute provided for judicial review of the Authority's decisions, and Southwest lacked an inherent right to such review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for judicial review are procedural and do not create jurisdiction or waive governmental immunity. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authorization.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityJurisdictionStandingHigh-Speed RailFranchise LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 13-07-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2008

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Maria Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. The housing authority terminated Lara's lease due to alleged criminal activity. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that the housing authority's notice of lease termination was defective as it failed to specify the judicial eviction procedure and the type of criminal activity, as mandated by federal regulations, and that this defect deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding that while the notice was indeed deficient, such defects are not jurisdictional and should lead to abatement of the action to allow the housing authority to cure the notice, rather than outright dismissal. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationHousing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsJurisdictionAbatementReversalRemand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04656 [129 AD3d 738]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

Tarantino v. MTA New York City Transit Authority

The New York City Transit Authority appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted John Tarantino's petition to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the lower court's decision. The court found that the arbitration proceeding was consensual, conducted under a collective bargaining agreement, thus the Supreme Court erred by applying a 'closer judicial scrutiny' standard. Judicial review of such an award is limited to cases where the arbitrator exceeded power by violating public policy, acting irrationally, or clearly exceeding enumerated limitations. Finding no such issues in the record, the Appellate Division reversed the order, denied the petition, reinstated the arbitration award, and remitted the matter for confirmation of the award.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Public PolicyIrrational AwardExceeding PowerConsensual Arbitration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Authority v. American Warehousing of New York, Inc.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey initiated a commercial holdover proceeding against American Warehousing of New York, Inc. (AWNY) to evict them from Pier 7 at the Brooklyn Marine Terminal. AWNY cross-moved to stay the proceeding, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to federal maritime law, exclusive regulatory oversight by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) under the Shipping Act, and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court rejected AWNY's arguments regarding maritime jurisdiction and primary jurisdiction, finding the lease was not a maritime contract and the issues were within the court's competence. However, to prevent inconsistent adjudications and judicial waste, the court granted AWNY's cross-motion, staying the holdover proceeding pending the FMC's determination on AWNY's complaint regarding the Port Authority's alleged Shipping Act violations.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingMaritime LawFederal PreemptionShipping ActPrimary JurisdictionStay OrderIntertwined ActionsReal PropertyLease Dispute
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 5,404 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