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

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District

The State Department of Highways and Public Transportation appealed an order granting a mandatory temporary injunction that directed them to file condemnation proceedings. Appellees, Elkins Lake Municipal Utility District and Elkins Lake Recreation Corporation, alleged property damage from construction runoff constituted a taking without compensation and sought to compel condemnation. The appellate court found that Texas law (article 3269) does not authorize courts to compel state agencies to initiate condemnation actions. Furthermore, the injunction was deemed improper because it changed the status quo, granted the appellees all the relief sought prematurely, and an adequate remedy at law existed through an inverse condemnation claim for monetary damages. Consequently, the temporary injunction was dissolved, and the cause was reversed and remanded to the trial court.

CondemnationTemporary InjunctionInverse CondemnationProperty RightsGovernment LiabilityAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil StatutesDue ProcessEminent DomainSovereign Immunity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2001

Smith v. Potter

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to compel the United States Postal Service (USPS) to shut down and decontaminate the Morgan Processing and Distribution Center and to test all related postal facilities for anthrax due to contamination. The Court denied the application to shut down the Morgan Facility, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the high standard for a mandatory injunction and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the defendant. The Court deferred to the scientific judgment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which concluded that the anthrax contamination no longer posed an imminent and substantial public health risk. However, the Court directed the USPS to immediately test the James A. Farley Station for anthrax and to conduct extermination services for a rodent problem at the Morgan Facility. The Court also ruled that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs' public nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief.

AnthraxBioterrorismPreliminary InjunctionRCRAPublic HealthCDCSovereign ImmunityPostal ServiceDecontaminationEnvironmental Law
References
14
Case No. 13-12-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

in Re City of Corpus Christi, Texas

The City of Corpus Christi, Texas, filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order denying its motion to transfer venue from San Patricio County to Nueces County. Corpus Christi argued that venue was mandatory in Nueces County under the provision governing injunction suits, as the City of Ingleside had sought injunctive relief against Corpus Christi regarding property taxation. The court, however, determined that the primary purpose of Ingleside's suit was for a declaratory judgment to establish geographical boundaries, with the injunctive relief being merely ancillary. Consequently, the mandatory venue provision for injunctions was deemed inapplicable. The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Venue disputeMandamus reliefDeclaratory judgmentInjunctive reliefInterlocutory appealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeJudicial discretionAppellate jurisdictionMunicipal boundariesTaxation dispute
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TRANSPORT WKRS. U. OF AMERICA v. Argentine Airlines

The Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) sued Argentine Airlines for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act regarding bargaining obligations. TWU objected to the Company's proposal to exclude specific job classifications from contract coverage. The court analyzed whether the proposal constituted a mandatory or non-mandatory subject of bargaining and if the Company unlawfully insisted on it to the point of impasse. The court determined the proposal was a non-mandatory bargaining subject but found no evidence that the Company insisted upon it to impasse, having shown flexibility and modified its demands during negotiations. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was denied.

labour lawcollective bargainingRailway Labor ActRLANational Labor Relations ActNLRAmandatory bargaining subjectsnon-mandatory bargaining subjectsimpasseinjunctive relief
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,080 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