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. E2014-01768-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2015

Yvonne Waters v. Donald Waters

This case involves the appeal of a divorce action between Yvonne Waters and Donald Waters after a 27-year marriage. The trial court divided the marital estate, awarding the wife approximately 68% due to her greater financial contribution and frugality, and also awarded her attorney's fees and costs. The husband appealed the property division and the attorney's fees award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital property but reversed the award of attorney's fees, modifying the total award to cover only discretionary costs, and denied the wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal. The case was remanded for collection of assessed costs.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAttorney's FeesAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFinancial ContributionEarning CapacitySeparate Property
References
17
Case No. 05-14-01223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2014

Michael Morford D/B/A Nemaha Water Services v. Esposito Securities, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, concerning an arbitration dispute. Appellee-Plaintiff Esposito Securities, LLC, initiated the original action to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with Appellants-Defendants (Nemaha Water Services entities). The core issue is whether Appellants-Defendants, who balked on a contractual payment obligation related to a transaction, qualify as 'customers' under FINRA Rule 12200, thereby mandating arbitration before FINRA instead of the contractually specified American Arbitration Association (AAA). The trial court granted Appellee-Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA and denied Appellants-Defendants' motion to compel arbitration before FINRA and their subsequent motion to reconsider. This brief argues to affirm the trial court's judgment, contending that Appellants are not 'customers' as defined by FINRA's rules, and that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement to use AAA supersedes any FINRA arbitration claims.

Arbitration AgreementFINRA Rule 12200Customer StatusFinancial ServicesAppealContract DisputeForum Selection ClauseTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActAmerican Arbitration Association
References
40
Case No. 01-15-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2015

the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. National Wildlife Federation

This case involves an appeal filed by the National Wildlife Federation (Appellee) against the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Appellants). The appeal concerns the District Court's judgment of March 6, 2015, which reversed and remanded TCEQ's decision to grant Water Use Permit No. 5821 to the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. The core issue is TCEQ's alleged failure to properly implement Texas Water Code Section 11.085 (l)(2), which requires stringent water conservation and efficiency for interbasin water transfers. The Appellee argues that TCEQ improperly relied on a voluntary guide (Report 362) instead of fulfilling legislative directives for robust conservation standards, and that the District's water conservation plan lacks adequate implementation and enforcement mechanisms, thus failing to meet the 'highest practicable levels of water conservation and efficiency achievable' as mandated by law.

Water ConservationInterbasin TransferEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Water CodeWater Use PermitDrought Contingency PlanRegulatory ComplianceBest Management Practices
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers-Liberty Cntys. Navigation Dist. v. State

The Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District and its Commissioners appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The State of Texas, representing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, sued them for allegedly exceeding their authority by leasing state waters to Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, L.L.C. (STORM) for oyster cultivation. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It found an express statutory waiver of immunity for the District regarding claims of unlawful oyster possession under the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. However, it dismissed the ultra vires claim against the District itself, clarifying such claims must target individual officials. The court upheld the ultra vires claim against the Commissioners, concluding they acted beyond their statutory authority in authorizing the lease. Furthermore, it ruled that retrospective relief in the form of restitution was permissible against the District, and the State's claim was ripe for adjudication, not merely hypothetical.

Sovereign immunityUltra viresNavigation districtsOyster cultivationState watersTexas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentStatutory interpretationGovernmental immunityPlea to jurisdictionRule 91a motion
References
28
Case No. 03-15-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2016

Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District v. State

The Chambers-Liberty Counties Navigation District and its Commissioners appealed a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and Rule 91a motion to dismiss. The State of Texas sued them, alleging they unlawfully authorized Sustainable Texas Oyster Resource Management, L.L.C. (STORM) to cultivate and harvest oysters in state waters. The appellate court found that sections 12.301 and 12.303 of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Code provided an express statutory waiver of immunity for the District regarding claims of unlawfully possessing oysters. However, the court reversed the trial court's order concerning the State's ultra vires claim against the District, as such claims must be brought against individual officials, not the governmental unit itself. The court affirmed the ultra vires claim against the Commissioners, finding they exceeded their statutory authority by granting STORM rights related to oysters, an authority vested solely in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The court also rejected the ripeness argument, stating the claim was not hypothetical.

Sovereign ImmunityUltra ViresNavigation DistrictsOyster CultivationTexas Water CodeTexas Parks & Wildlife CodeGovernmental AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPlea to JurisdictionRule 91a Motion to Dismiss
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2011

Waters v. General Board of Global Ministries

Tylie S. Waters sued General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church (GBGM) alleging age discrimination and harassment under the ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Waters claimed various adverse employment actions, including a menial task, cancelled vacation, isolation, performance plan, EAP referral, and a two-day suspension. The court found no evidence of an objectively hostile work environment or that actions were based on Waters' age, noting many supervisors were also in a protected age class. Most alleged actions were not considered materially adverse, and legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were cited for the suspension. Consequently, the court granted GBGM's motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal District CourtNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawADEAEmployee PerformanceInsubordination
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v. Brown

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that the Mud Pond Waterway does not meet the navigable-in-fact test under common law. The dissent highlights the waterway's physical characteristics, including its shallowness, narrowness, impassable rapids, and dense vegetation, asserting these features render it impractical for common public use as a highway for travel or transport. It emphasizes that despite recent public access opportunities via the Lila Traverse and its potential for recreational canoeing, the waterway lacks the practical utility for general public or commercial purposes. The opinion also notes the historical private ownership and use, contrasting it with the stringent New York common law standard for navigability, which prioritizes commercial utility over recreational use alone. Ultimately, the dissent warns against expanding the navigability-in-fact doctrine, which could destabilize private property ownership by opening remote, privately owned bodies of water based solely on arduous public access.

Waterway NavigabilityCommon LawDissenting OpinionPublic EasementPrivate PropertyRecreational UseCommercial TransportNew York LawMud Pond WaterwayLila Traverse
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corporation appealed a district court judgment that dismissed its claims against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Carma Easton, Inc. Creedmoor sought to challenge a TCEQ order granting Carma an expedited release from Creedmoor's certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN), which would allow Carma to obtain water service from another utility. Creedmoor argued that TCEQ exceeded its statutory authority and that the water code provisions were unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, the Texas Open Courts guarantee, and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Creedmoor failed to demonstrate that it "provided or made service available" to the disputed area, a key requirement for federal protection under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1926(b). The court also found no valid Open Courts or Due Process violations, emphasizing that CCNs do not confer vested property rights.

Water Supply CorporationCertificate of Convenience and NecessityTCEQExpedited ReleaseSovereign ImmunitySupremacy ClauseOpen Courts DoctrineDue ProcessJudicial ReviewWater Rights
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 509 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