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
May 15, 2006

Land Master Montg I, LLC v. Town of Montgomery

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barker v. Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc.

Plaintiff Chris J. Barker sued his employer, Peconic Landing at Southold, Inc., and three individual employees, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York State law. Plaintiff, who suffers from hearing loss and a rotator cuff injury, claims he was discriminated against based on his disabilities and retaliated against for reporting alleged misconduct, including drug use and theft, at the facility. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the New York whistleblower statute (Section 740) and that initiating a Section 740 claim waives other state and federal discrimination claims. The court denied the motion, finding that the whistleblower claim did not waive the discrimination claims and that the allegations regarding drug use and theft were sufficient at this stage to state a plausible claim under Section 740.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationDisability DiscriminationWhistleblower ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawNew York Labor LawMotion to DismissPlausibility StandardPublic Health and Safety
References
23
Case No. 03-96-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1997

Marshall Land v. AT & S Transportation, Inc.

Marshall Land sued his employer, AT & S Transportation, Inc., claiming a failure to provide a safe work environment after sustaining a back injury. AT & S, a nonsubscriber to the workers' compensation system, filed a counterclaim for sanctions under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court awarded AT & S $48,000 in attorney's fees as sanctions against Land, finding his pleadings groundless, brought in bad faith, and false, and that Land committed fraud. Land appealed, arguing the sanctions order was defective for not stating particulars of good cause and that the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Land waived the complaint regarding lack of particularity by not objecting at trial and that the partial record provided was insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the sanctions.

SanctionsRule 13Appellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceWaiverGood CauseAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 11.355 Acres of Land

The United States initiated condemnation proceedings on September 8, 1943, to acquire 11.355 acres in Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, for national defense housing under various war powers acts and executive orders. Landowners L. J. Goodson, J. W. Singleton, and C. W. B. Long challenged the taking, arguing a lack of housing shortage, non-public use, and violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming the land was for private benefit and not essential for the war effort. Judge Atwell determined that providing housing for war plant workers constituted a legitimate 'public use' vital for war prosecution, dismissing arguments about alternative lands or private benefit. The court affirmed the government's right to condemn the property, with just compensation to be determined later. Consequently, the motion to set aside the taking and for restraint was refused.

CondemnationEminent DomainPublic UseWar Powers ActNational DefenseHousing ShortageFifth AmendmentDue ProcessProperty RightsDallas County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. and Mike Latta v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, Llc

This case addresses whether a landowner can legally challenge a CO2 pipeline owner's claim of eminent domain power, granted via a common-carrier permit from the Railroad Commission. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, secured such a permit by simply checking a box on a form, prompting landowners Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., and Mike Latta to contest the pipeline's legitimacy as a public utility. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that merely registering as a common carrier does not automatically confer eminent domain power or prevent landowners from seeking judicial review. The Court established a new standard, requiring pipeline companies to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' that their pipeline will genuinely serve the public by transporting gas for external customers, not solely for the owner or its affiliates. Concluding that Denbury Green failed to demonstrate this public use as a matter of law, the Court overturned the appellate court's decision and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Eminent DomainCommon Carrier StatusCO2 PipelineProperty RightsPublic Use DoctrinePrivate UseRailroad CommissionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Natural Resources Code
References
21
Case No. 06-09-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

George D. Solomon and Wife, Jini Solomon v. Perry Steitler, D/B/A North East Texas Land & Timber, Larry Bullard, and Tina Bullard

This case involves an appeal by George D. Solomon and Jini Solomon (Appellants) against Perry Steitler, d/b/a North East Texas Land & Timber, Larry Bullard, and Tina Bullard (Appellees). The dispute originated when a lake constructed by the Solomons, with Steitler as the contractor, flooded a portion of the Bullards' adjoining property, destroying trees. The jury found the Solomons liable for violating the Texas Water Code, negligence, and gross negligence, awarding actual and exemplary damages to the Bullards. Additionally, the jury awarded damages to Steitler for the Solomons' breach of contract. On appeal, the Solomons challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including punitive damages, loss of use damages, a directed verdict, a juror challenge, appellate attorney's fees, and a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, with a modification to explicitly condition the award of appellate attorney's fees on a successful appeal.

Property DisputeWater RightsFlooding DamageNegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesBreach of ContractDirected VerdictAppellate Attorneys' Fees
References
46
Case No. 06-21-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2022

Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, UATP Management, LLC, Zoya Enterprises, Ltd., and UA Holdings, LLC v. Hamza Lakhani

Hamza Lakhani, an appellee, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC and several other entities (appellants) after suffering injuries at an adventure park. The appellants sought to compel arbitration based on a release signed by Lakhani. The trial court denied this motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial for UATP, Zoya, and UA, concluding no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and Lakhani. However, the court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, but severed a provision that prohibited the award of punitive or exemplary damages, deeming it unconscionable. The case was subsequently reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration for Lakhani's claims against Sugar Land Urban Air, LLC, consistent with the modified agreement.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryContract LawUnconscionabilityPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Gross NegligenceAppellate Decision
References
42
Case No. 03-11-00211-CV
Regular Panel Decision

City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Carowest Land, Ltd.

The City of New Braunfels appealed a district court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by Carowest Land, Ltd., concerning a flood control project. Carowest's claims included inverse condemnation, constitutional violations under Section 1983, breach of contract, and common-law torts, all arising from the City's actions regarding land conveyance, fill material, and contractual obligations. The appellate court reversed the denial of the plea for the inverse condemnation and Section 1983 claims, with the latter remanded for potential amendment, finding jurisdictional defects. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plea for Carowest's common-law contract and tort claims, as well as associated attorney's fees, citing waivers of immunity under Local Government Code chapter 271 and the jurisdiction created by the City's own monetary counterclaims. Additionally, the district court's denial of the City's plea regarding Carowest's declaratory claims under the Texas Open Meetings Act, Local Government Code chapter 252, and concerns about the Yantis delay claim were also affirmed.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractSection 1983Declaratory JudgmentOpen Meetings ActLocal Government CodeMunicipal LawProperty Rights
References
84
Case No. 148 AD3d 988
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Derosas v. Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff Eduardo Derosas, a maintenance worker, sustained serious injuries while cutting a downed tree at a camp. He received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The Supreme Court, Orange County, granted summary judgment to defendants Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC, and Scott L. Rosmarin, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found claims against Rosmarin barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision, citing his coemployee status. It also determined that tree cutting was not covered under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentCoemployee ImmunityOut-of-Possession LandlordTree RemovalMaintenance Worker InjuryPremises Liability
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,951 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