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
Sep 20, 1990

Benjamin v. Nelstad Materials Corp.

Plaintiffs, residents of Sutton Manor, New Rochelle, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed their complaint against a cement manufacturing plant, operated by the defendants, alleging it constituted a nuisance. The plaintiffs specifically complained about offensive noise, white powder, and unlawful waste discharge. The Supreme Court's judgment, finding in favor of the defendants, was affirmed on appeal. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove an actionable nuisance, noting the plant's use of modern equipment and efforts to reduce disturbances. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, contending that the defendants' actions were negligent, reckless, and unreasonable, and that their remediation efforts were insufficient, suggesting further hearings on monetary damages.

Nuisance ActionEnvironmental LawCement ManufacturingNoise PollutionAir PollutionWaste ManagementProperty NuisanceAppellate DecisionTrial JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulledge v. Wester

Robert and Diana Gulledge were permanently enjoined from completing a second-story deck on their boathouse after their neighbors, Warren Wester and Theodore Sullivan, complained that the structure blocked their water views, constituting a negligent nuisance. The Gulledges appealed the trial court's judgment and injunction. The appellate court, reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, applied the Texas Supreme Court's definition of private nuisance, requiring both 'substantial interference' and 'unreasonable discomfort or annoyance'. The court determined that Wester and Sullivan did not present legally sufficient evidence to meet these thresholds, considering the nature of the neighborhood, pre-existing view impairments, and the Gulledges' mitigating actions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Wester and Sullivan.

Negligent NuisanceProperty DisputeWater View ObstructionBoathouse ConstructionPermanent InjunctionAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceSubstantial InterferenceUnreasonable DiscomfortReal Property Law
References
12
Case No. 03-03-0111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

State v. Ricky Shumake and Sandra Shumake, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kayla Shumake

A child drowned in a culvert at Blanco State Park. Her parents sued the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife for wrongful death, alleging premise defect, nuisance, and attractive nuisance. The Parks Department claimed sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Recreational Use Statute. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction regarding the premise defect claim, finding sufficient allegations of gross negligence based on the duty owed to a known trespasser. However, it reversed the denial for the nuisance and attractive nuisance claims, ruling immunity was not waived for those. The court also held the Recreational Use Statute constitutional and applicable even with an entrance fee.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActRecreational Use StatutePremise DefectAttractive NuisanceGross NegligenceKnown TrespasserWrongful DeathState Park LiabilityAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06527
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Monaghan v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr.

This case involves Kaitlyn Monaghan's action against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre and St. Francis of Assisi Parish, alleging personal injuries from sexual abuse by Father Gregory Yacyshyn. The plaintiff asserted claims including criminal nuisance and public nuisance. The defendants appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss these specific causes of action. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the criminal nuisance claim because Penal Law § 240.45 does not create a private right of action. Furthermore, the court granted the dismissal of the public nuisance claim, finding that the complaint failed to identify a cognizable common public right interfered with by the Diocese's actions regarding the disclosure of accused priests.

Child sexual abuseVicarious liabilityNegligent supervisionCriminal nuisancePublic nuisanceDismissal motionAppellate reviewCPLR 3211 (a)(7)Private right of actionMandated reporters
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Ricky Shumake and Sandra Shumake, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kayla Shumake

A child drowned in a culvert in Blanco State Park while swimming. Her parents, Ricky and Sandra Shumake, sued the Parks Department for wrongful death, alleging special/premise defect, nuisance, and attractive nuisance, claiming waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The Parks Department argued immunity under the Recreational Use Statute. The district court denied the plea to the jurisdiction but found the Recreational Use Statute unconstitutional as applied. This court reversed the unconstitutionality finding, upheld the Recreational Use Statute's applicability despite an entrance fee, and found no waiver of immunity for nuisance or attractive nuisance. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plea as to the premise defect claim, finding the Shumakes adequately alleged gross negligence under the known trespasser standard of care.

Wrongful DeathSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActRecreational Use StatutePremise DefectNuisanceAttractive NuisanceGross NegligenceKnown TrespasserGovernmental Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1985

Brewer v. Monsanto Corp.

The federal court in Waynesboro, Tennessee, addressed motions to dismiss in a class action lawsuit filed by employees and their family members against Monsanto, Duracell, and Emhart Industries. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and property damage from PCB contamination at a manufacturing plant previously owned by Duracell and then Emhart, claiming negligence, fraudulent concealment, and nuisance. Chief Judge Wiseman ruled on various grounds, including defective pleading under federal rules, worker's compensation exclusivity under Tennessee law, and vendor liability for real property. The court largely denied the defendants' motions, allowing most claims—including those for fraud, intentional torts, direct personal injury to family members, property damage, and nuisance—to proceed. However, the motion to dismiss claims for non-nuisance defects after the property transfer was granted, as the court found no Tennessee precedent to extend vendor liability beyond nuisance in such contexts.

Environmental lawToxic tortPCB contaminationWorker's Compensation exclusivityFraudulent concealmentNuisanceProperty damageVendor liabilityMotions to dismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. 08-19-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2020

Lawrence E. Meyers, as Manager of the Ramon Burstyn Irrevocable Trust v. 8007 Burnet Holdings, LLC John Reese Nelson Magen Bullock Nelson Antonio Calvo J.M.N. Enterprises, LLC And 8007 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas, in Rem

This statutory nuisance case involves adjacent property owners in Austin, Texas. Lawrence E. Meyers, as manager for the Burstyn Irrevocable Trust, sued 8007 Burnet Holdings, LLC and other appellees over issues stemming from a boarding house on the appellees' property, which housed individuals with mental health issues. Residents of Zoe's Safe Place allegedly engaged in disturbing acts on the Trust's adjacent properties. The Trust initially filed common law claims and later added a statutory nuisance claim under Chapter 125 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The jury found no statutory nuisance, trespass, or private nuisance damages, and the trial court affirmed the judgment, setting aside the jury's attorney's fee finding and awarding its own amount. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no charge error and sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.

Statutory NuisanceProperty DisputeCivil ProcedureJury Charge ErrorAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewReal EstateLand UseTexas LawCommon Nuisance
References
41
Case No. 13-19-00500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack v. D D Ramirez, Inc., Danny Ramirez Recycling, Inc., San Antonio Auto & Truck Salvage, Danny's Recycling & Precious Metals, LLC, Danny's Recycling, Inc., and Daniel Delagarza Ramirez

Appellants, Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack (TASI), sued appellees, D D Ramirez, Inc., et al. (DDR), over a dispute regarding their neighboring metal recycling facilities in San Antonio. TASI alleged various claims including public and private nuisance, arguing DDR’s facilities were polluted and violated city ordinances, causing harm to TASI’s business and property. After a jury trial, the jury found against TASI on most claims, and the trial court granted DDR’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), issuing a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, TASI challenged the denial of injunctive relief and the JNOV on its public nuisance claim, as well as the exclusion of expert testimony and the factual insufficiency of evidence for its private nuisance claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that TASI lacked standing to bring its public and private nuisance claims as it failed to demonstrate a substantial special injury distinct from the public at large.

Public NuisancePrivate NuisanceStandingJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Injunctive ReliefMunicipal OrdinancesMetal Recycling FacilitiesEnvironmental RegulationsCode ViolationsBusiness Dispute
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Stram

Plaintiffs and defendants, neighboring lakefront property owners in Broome County, engaged in construction work near Oquaga Lake. Plaintiffs accused defendants of negligence, trespass, and nuisance, claiming their activities increased lake turbidity. A jury ruled in favor of defendants on the negligence claim, and the Supreme Court dismissed the trespass and nuisance claims. Plaintiffs appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no compelling evidence to overturn the jury's negligence verdict and upholding the dismissal of trespass and nuisance due to a lack of intent.

Lakefront property disputeconstruction workenvironmental impactlake turbiditynegligence claimtrespass claimnuisance claimjury verdictappeal decisionevidentiary review
References
8
Case No. 10-19-00278-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2021

City of Robinson, a Municipal Corporation v. Alton Jay Leuschner and Nina June Leuschner

The City of Robinson appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by Alton and Nina Leuschner. The Leuschners alleged a constitutional taking, permanent nuisance, and nuisance per se due to foul odors from a sewer lift station constructed by the City near their home. The City argued governmental immunity and that its actions were not intentional for a takings claim. The appellate court reviewed the ruling de novo, focusing on whether the Leuschners presented evidence that the City acted intentionally with knowledge of the harm before construction. Finding no such evidence, the court reversed the trial court's decision, dismissing the Leuschners' nuisance and constitutional takings claims with prejudice.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionInverse CondemnationConstitutional TakingsNuisance ClaimsSewer SystemOdor NuisanceIntentional ActJurisdictional Facts
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 90 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