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. 03-08-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2008

PODER, Govalle/Johnston Terrace Neighborhood Planning Team, Old West Austin Neighborhood Association and Fix Austin v. City of Austin Mayor of Austin, the Honorable Will Wynn Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Mike Martinez Council Member Jennifer Kim Council Member Lee Leffingwell Council Member Brewster McCracken Council Member Sheryl Cole

Appellants, including PODER and neighborhood planning teams, challenged the City of Austin's decision to relocate its animal shelter. They contended that the City violated Article X of the Austin City Charter by not including the project in its comprehensive plan and that the city council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) regarding its March 8, 2007 meeting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the animal shelter relocation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan, and that the city council's actions regarding budget allocations were properly noticed under TOMA. Therefore, no violation of the city charter or TOMA occurred.

Austin City CharterTexas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Summary JudgmentAnimal Shelter RelocationComprehensive PlanningNeighborhood PlanningZoning RegulationsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewLand Use Policy
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
Case No. 03-95-00522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1996

Ben Robinson Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Its Members in Their Official Capacity, O.D. Kenemore, Ramon Class, Jack Garey, Royce Faulkner, Donna L. Snyder and John Nash

The Ben Robinson Company appealed a judgment concerning the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program. The company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident involving its vice-president. The primary legal question was whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) preempted this state program. The appellate court rejected the Commission's arguments regarding mootness and the OSH Act's savings clauses. Ultimately, the court held that the Texas Program was preempted by the OSH Act where federal safety standards already existed, reversing the trial court's decision in part and remanding for a determination on attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationOccupational Safety and Health ActPreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesWorkplace SafetyTexas Court of AppealsEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. General Motors Corp.

This case began in March 1976 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination by General Motors at its Arlington, Texas Assembly Plant. A class of black employees was certified in April 1980, and after extensive discovery and negotiations, a proposed Consent Decree for settlement was filed in July 1981. Despite significant objections from over 600 class members, the Court conducted a thorough evaluation of the settlement's fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness, considering the likelihood of success on various discrimination claims (job placement, promotion, transfer, work assignment, and discipline) and the potential range of recovery. The Court found a good chance of proving discrimination in job placement, transfer, and promotion, estimating a potential back pay award of approximately $142,000, along with injunctive relief. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the settlement was a reasonable compromise, substantially addressing class injury through monetary recovery, GM's commitment to non-discrimination, and its existing affirmative action program, thereby approving the Consent Decree.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationClass ActionConsent DecreeSettlement ApprovalTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Job PlacementPromotion DiscriminationBack Pay
References
18
Case No. 2016-08-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Humphreys, Jerry v. Prestigious Placement, Inc.

Jerry Humphreys, a fifty-year-old employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Prestigious Placement, Inc., his uninsured employer, seeking continued medical and temporary disability benefits for work-related neck and back injuries sustained on June 18, 2015. Humphreys reported the injury to Americraft supervisor and then Prestigious, receiving initial treatment and benefits until January 15, 2016, when benefits were terminated due to alleged refusal of light duty work and fabricated claims. The Court found Humphreys injured himself at work and that the employer's defenses lacked evidence, including their claim of willful misconduct or refusal of light duty work. Presiding Judge Jim Umsted ruled that Humphreys is entitled to continued medical treatment with his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits from January 16, 2016, forward. Additionally, the Court awarded Humphreys' attorney a fee of twenty percent of the temporary disability award.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryCervical MyelopathyUninsured EmployerWork-Related AccidentSedentary Work RestrictionsAttorney's Fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1993

Texas Employers Insurance v. Underwriting Members of Lloyds

The case involves a dispute between a primary insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), and several excess liability insurers (The Underwriting Members of Lloyds, et al.) over the reimbursement of defense costs incurred in an underlying lawsuit. TEIA, Monsanto's primary insurer, defended Monsanto in a toxic tort case, paying its $1 million indemnity limit and $4,057,245 in attorneys’ fees and costs. TEIA sought contribution and indemnity from the excess carriers, alleging they were responsible for defense costs and breached a duty of good faith. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, holding that under Texas law and the unambiguous terms of the insurance policies, excess insurers are not obligated to participate in defense costs until the primary policy limits are exhausted. The Court also found TEIA's purported tender of its policy limits invalid and dismissed its claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs. Excess InsurerDefense CostsEquitable SubrogationSummary JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTexas LawGood Faith and Fair DealingExhaustion of Policy LimitsIndemnity Claim
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. 03-18-00363-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Ben Melton v. CU Members Mortgage, a Division of Colonial Savings F. A. And First Western Title Co.

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a home equity loan on real property. Appellant Ben Melton challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees CU Members Mortgage and First Western Title Co., alleging various constitutional defects under Article XVI, section 50 of the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the district court's findings that the appellees either complied with constitutional requirements or effectively cured any initial non-compliance related to the loan. However, the court reversed the district court's award of attorney's fees, remanding that specific issue for a new trial due to a factual dispute over the reasonableness of the fee amount.

Home Equity LoanTexas ConstitutionArticle XVI Section 50Summary JudgmentConstitutional LawForeclosureReal Property LawStatute of LimitationsAttorney's FeesAppellate Review
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 1,793 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