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

Tupper v. City of Syracuse

This appeal originated from a Supreme Court judgment in Onondaga County, entered July 19, 2006, which had annulled City of Syracuse General Ordinance Nos. 46 and 49 of 2005. The initial CPLR article 78 proceeding was based on the contention that the City of Syracuse failed to conduct a proper State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review prior to enacting the ordinances. The appellate court converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, deeming it the correct procedural vehicle for challenging a legislative act. Upon review of the merits, the court reversed the lower court's judgment. It determined that the ordinances' enactment did not affect the environment within the scope of SEQRA, as they did not impact the physical environment, population patterns, or existing community character. Therefore, the appellate court declared City of Syracuse General Ordinance Nos. 46 and 49 of 2005 to be valid.

AppealDeclaratory JudgmentSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewOrdinancesValidityCPLR Article 78Onondaga CountyZoningProperty Law
References
5
Case No. 03-18-00445-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2018

Texas Association of Business National Federation of Independent Business, American Staffing Association LeadingEdge Personnel, Ltd. Staff Force, Inc. HT Staffing Ltd. D/B/A the HT Group The Burnett Companies Consolidated, Inc., D/B/A Burnett Specialists Society for Human Resource Management Texas State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management Austin Human Resource Management Association Strickland School, LLC And the State of Texas v. City of Austin, Texas, and Spencer Cronk, City Manager of the City of Austin

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the City of Austin’s paid-sick-leave ordinance. The Texas Association of Business and other private parties, along with the State of Texas as intervenor, sued the City of Austin, asserting the ordinance is unconstitutional and preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The district court denied both the application for a temporary injunction and the City’s jurisdictional challenges. The appellate court reversed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over the claims and that the City’s paid-sick-leave ordinance violates the Texas Constitution because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The case was remanded for the issuance of the requested temporary injunction and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Texas lawAustin ordinancepaid sick leavepreemptionTexas Minimum Wage Actconstitutional lawinterlocutory appealgovernmental immunityripenessstanding
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ussery v. City of Columbia

This case involved a class action suit brought by employees of the City of Columbia against the City, seeking step raise promotions based on a 1984 employee handbook and pay ordinances. The trial court found in favor of the employees, determining the handbook was a breached contract and the ordinances created an-implied contract due to detrimental reliance. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's findings regarding the handbook's contractual nature and the implied contract from the ordinances. However, the appellate court affirmed the award of damages, concluding that the City had violated the plain language of its own ordinances by failing to pay promised step increases based on performance and available funding. The decision highlights the distinction between contractual obligations and the violation of municipal ordinances.

Employment contractEmployee handbookPay raisesMerit increasesOrdinancesBreach of contractImplied contractClass actionAppellate reviewStatutory construction
References
42
Case No. 3:08-CV-1615-B / 3:08-CV-1551-B
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2009

Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch

This case involves pre-enforcement constitutional challenges brought by two groups of plaintiffs (tenants and landlords) against the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, regarding an ordinance establishing a residential licensing scheme tied to federal immigration status. Plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated the Supremacy Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection. The City countered that plaintiffs lacked standing and the ordinance was a valid exercise of municipal authority. The court determined that both tenant and landlord plaintiffs had standing for most of their claims. Ultimately, the court found the ordinance to be an impermissible regulation of immigration and impliedly preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the City from enforcing Ordinance 2952.

Immigration LawFederal PreemptionSupremacy ClauseMunicipal OrdinanceResidential Licensing SchemeConstitutional LawStandingPermanent InjunctionSummary JudgmentLandlord-Tenant Law
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centro De La Comunidad His-pana De Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay

The Town of Oyster Bay enacted an ordinance in 2009 prohibiting individuals from stopping vehicles in public rights-of-way to solicit work and drivers from stopping to solicit employees. Plaintiffs, Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, challenged the ordinance, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The Court found that the ordinance regulated commercial speech and applied the Central Hudson test. While acknowledging the Town's substantial interest in traffic safety and public welfare, the Court concluded that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. It deemed the ordinance unconstitutional due to its overbreadth, as it prohibited lawful expressive conduct that did not necessarily pose a threat to safety, and noted the availability of less speech-restrictive alternatives. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted.

First AmendmentCommercial SpeechOrdinanceSolicitation of EmploymentConstitutional OverbreadthSummary JudgmentDay LaborersPublic Right-of-WayTraffic SafetyContent-Based Restriction
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. City of Dallas

This case involves a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Dallas against A.E. Brewster et al., challenging the City's Sign Ordinance. Brewster contended the Ordinance was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically violating freedom of speech and depriving property without due process. The court applied a standard for summary judgment and a more intense scrutiny for regulations affecting protected speech, while applying rational basis for due process. The court found that the Ordinance directly advances substantial government interests in communications efficiency, safety, and aesthetics, and is not overbroad. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Ordinance's amortization period and landmark designation process do not deny due process or equal protection. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, denying Brewster's claims for injunctive and other relief, finding the Ordinance constitutionally valid.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionCommercial SpeechSummary JudgmentCity OrdinanceZoning RegulationsAmortization PeriodSign Control
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park

The Long Island Board of Realtors sued the Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park, challenging a municipal ordinance regulating residential signs as an unconstitutional restraint on speech and sought an injunction. The Village cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the ordinance's constitutionality. The court applied the Central Hudson and Ward tests, finding the ordinance content-neutral and serving substantial governmental interests in aesthetics and safety. While acknowledging issues regarding the ordinance's selective application raised by the Board, the court ultimately granted the Village's cross-motion for summary judgment, denied the Board's motion, and dismissed the complaint, declining to enjoin enforcement based on the record.

First AmendmentCommercial SpeechSign OrdinanceMunicipal OrdinanceConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechContent NeutralityAesthetic InterestPublic Safety
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noell v. City of Carrollton

This dispute involves claims by homeowners in the Air Park Dallas community against a real estate developer, the zoning committee, and the City of Carrollton. The City ordered the airpark's airport closed after annexing a portion of it and passing an ordinance. Homeowners sued the developer and zoning committee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements, and sued the City challenging the ordinance and closure order. Noell, a homeowner and minority owner of the developer, also challenged the ordinance. The trial court invalidated the closure order and granted relief to homeowners. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidation of the closure order, reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, and remanded some claims to the trial court. It also modified part of the injunctive relief against the developer and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Airpark CommunityEasement RightsMunicipal ZoningNuisance AbatementDue ProcessConstitutional LawContract BreachFiduciary DutyProperty RestrictionsOrdinance Vagueness
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League City v. W. R. Flora & Sons, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction granted against the City of League City (appellant) for enforcing Ordinance No. 41. Appellees W. R. Flora & Sons, Inc., a top soil, sand, and fill dirt vendor, and Earl Turner, a property owner, challenged the ordinance which imposed a 6500-pound load limit on certain roads, effectively denying them access to Turner's property for their business. The trial court found the ordinance arbitrary, discriminatory, and oppressive, causing irreparable harm to the appellees' property rights and business. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient evidence of probable right and probable injury due to the ordinance's impact on property access and its discriminatory nature.

injunctionpenal ordinanceproperty rightsaccess rightspolice powerdiscriminationtemporary injunctionTexas lawroad restrictionscommercial business
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goode v. City of Dallas

The case concerns the validity of a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted by the City of Dallas, which prohibits the open storage of motor vehicles in residential districts unless incidental to the property's use as a residence. Landowner William P. Goode challenged the ordinance, arguing it was unconstitutionally vague and failed to adequately define an offense. The district court upheld the ordinance and granted an injunction requested by the City, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found the ordinance's language, particularly 'incidental to the use,' sufficiently clear and constitutional in its application to Goode's situation, where he stored thirteen cars and two motorcycles as a hobby. Furthermore, the court upheld the enabling state statute, article 1011h, against vagueness claims and ruled that the City was not prevented from seeking injunctive relief due to administrative remedies.

ZoningOrdinance ValidityMotor Vehicle StorageResidential ZoningDue ProcessConstitutional LawMunicipal LawTexas LawInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 124 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