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. 03-14-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2014

Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead Michael McCall Wayne Knox And the City of Hempstead v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C.

This case involves an appeal by Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead (CALH), Michael McCall, Wayne Knox, and the City of Hempstead (collectively, Appellants) against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C. (Appellees). The appeal challenges the district court's judgment upholding TCEQ's decision to issue Registration No. 40259 to Pintail Landfill, L.L.C. for a transfer station/materials recovery facility. The appellants argue that the facility requires a full permit, not just a registration, under TCEQ rules, and that they were denied due process without an opportunity for a contested case hearing. They also contend that TCEQ violated its own policy by allowing an excessive number of Notices of Deficiency (NODs) during the application review process. The district court affirmed TCEQ's decision, which the appellants are now challenging.

Landfill PermitTransfer StationRecycling FacilityEnvironmental LawTCEQ RulesDue ProcessAdministrative Procedure ActNotice of DeficiencyWaste ManagementTexas Appeals Court
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1989

Orange Environment Inc. v. Jorling

The petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to renew a landfill permit for Al Turi Landfill, Inc. The permit extension allowed expanded use and acceptance of incinerator ash without requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The petitioner contended that DEC failed to conduct a thorough environmental review. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that DEC had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for not requiring an SEIS. The appellate court also found that DEC was not obligated to consider cumulative impacts in the absence of a comprehensive development plan and that the permit renewal was consistent with the department's aquifer protection policy.

Environmental LawLandfill PermitSEISNegative DeclarationAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Environmental Impact AssessmentGroundwater ContaminationAppellate ReviewPermit Renewal
References
7
Case No. 04-21-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2022

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

In this interlocutory appeal, Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) challenged the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying case was a declaratory judgment action filed by the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District, seeking to interpret its Rule 8.1 against a municipal solid waste landfill permitted by TCEQ to Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. The appellate court concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the District's declaratory judgment action due to the redundant remedies doctrine. This was because the District had an ongoing administrative appeal challenging the TCEQ's permit approval for the same landfill. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the District's lawsuit, asserting that both legal avenues sought the same ultimate relief: to prevent the landfill's operation.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActionRedundant Remedies DoctrineEnvironmental LawSolid Waste Disposal ActWater RightsGroundwater ConservationLandfill PermittingAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Case No. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2012

Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Juliff Gardens v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Juliff Gardens, L.L.C. appealed a district court's judgment regarding its application for a landfill permit, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Health and Safety Code section 361.122. This law mandated the denial of Juliff's permit if certain conditions were met, which Juliff contended were unconstitutional local or special laws. The appellate court reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting the court's authority to hear the constitutional challenge. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, concluding that section 361.122 is not an unconstitutional local or special law as its classifications are reasonable and apply equally within the class.

Landfill permitEnvironmental regulationConstitutional challengeLocal lawSpecial lawStatutory validityAdministrative lawJurisdictionSummary judgment reviewRipeness doctrine
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 745 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