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. 21-0769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Angela Horton and Kevin Houser

This is a concurring opinion by Justice Busby of the Supreme Court of Texas concerning the preemption of state common-law negligence suits against railway companies. The core issue is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) over humped railroad crossings, thereby preempting state claims. Justice Busby joins the Court's opinion, which concludes that such preemption does not occur. The opinion extensively criticizes the current implied obstacle preemption doctrine for being inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause and argues for a "logical contradiction" test grounded in originalism. Furthermore, Justice Busby contends that applying current implied obstacle preemption in this context conflicts with the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for significant shifts in federal and state power. The opinion highlights the unworkable and inconsistent application of existing preemption jurisprudence and concludes that the plaintiffs' common-law negligence claims are not impliedly preempted by ICCTA.

PreemptionFederalismSupremacy ClauseInterstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA)Surface Transportation Board (STB)Major Questions DoctrineState Common LawRailroad SafetyNegligenceStatutory Interpretation
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. LOCAL 338, RETAIL, WHOLESALE, DEPT. STORE UNION, UCFW, AFL-CIO

Plaintiff Duane Reade, a large drug store chain, sought a preliminary injunction against Defendant Local 338, a union, to prevent trespassing and solicitation of its employees regarding a union affiliation election. The action, initially filed in New York state court for common law trespass, was removed to federal court by Local 338, which argued for preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Presiding Judge Kaplan considered whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'complete preemption.' The court concluded that Duane Reade's state law claim fell under 'simple preemption' rather than 'complete preemption,' meaning federal question jurisdiction was not established. Consequently, the district court ruled that the case was improperly removed and ordered it remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of New York.

Preliminary InjunctionTrespassUnion Affiliation ElectionLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionComplete PreemptionSimple PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co.

This case addresses a Plaintiff's motion to remand their state-law claims, arising from alleged pesticide exposure, back to state court after the Defendant removed the action to federal court. The Defendant argued for federal question jurisdiction based on the preemption of state-law claims by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The Court, however, determined that FIFRA preemption does not create federal question jurisdiction under the complete preemption doctrine because FIFRA lacks a private right of action and a specific grant of federal jurisdiction. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's alternative argument for diversity jurisdiction, noting that the Defendant is a citizen of the forum state, which prohibits removal. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal PreemptionFIFRARemoval JurisdictionComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsPesticide RegulationFifth Circuit LawDiversity JurisdictionRemand Motion
References
23
Case No. 21-0769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2023

Angela Horton and Kevin Houser v. the Kansas City Southern Railway Company

This concurring opinion in Horton v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company argues against the application of implied obstacle preemption to state common-law negligence claims related to the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). Justice Busby asserts that ICCTA does not expressly preempt such claims and that implied obstacle preemption is inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause's original meaning, which requires a 'logical contradiction' between federal and state law. The opinion further contends that this doctrine damages federalism and the separation of powers due to its unconstrained and unworkable nature. It urges the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its implied obstacle preemption jurisprudence and adopt an approach consistent with the Constitution's original public meaning. The opinion emphasizes the importance of clear congressional authorization for delegating powers and displacing traditional state police powers.

Preemption LawConstitutional LawFederalism DoctrineSeparation of PowersStatutory InterpretationImplied Obstacle PreemptionSupremacy ClauseInterstate Commerce Commission Termination ActSurface Transportation BoardMajor Questions Doctrine
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State

This case addresses whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts state criminal prosecution for criminally negligent homicide. Appellants Tantillo and Sabine Consolidated, Inc. were convicted in Texas after two employees died in a trench collapse, but the Court of Appeals reversed, citing OSHA preemption. This court examined express, implied, and conflict preemption doctrines. It concluded that OSHA does not preempt state criminal laws, as the federal act primarily aims to prevent workplace hazards, while state criminal statutes punish unlawful acts. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of remaining points of error.

OSHA preemptioncriminal negligent homicideworkplace safetystate criminal lawfederal preemptiontrench collapseemployee deathTexas Penal CodeOccupational Safety and Health ActSupremacy Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. v. Building Trades Council

Delta-Sonic sought an injunction to prevent The Council from distributing handbills outside its carwashes in Rochester. The Council, representing various construction unions, initiated the protest against Delta-Sonic, believing it was affiliated with Benderson Corporation, which allegedly hired nonunion labor. Delta-Sonic claimed tortious interference with its business and denied affiliation, while The Council argued that federal labor law preempted the state court action. The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth R. Fisher, examined federal preemption doctrines, specifically Garmon and Machinists preemption. Ultimately, the court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the peaceful handbilling was either arguably protected under NLRA Section 7 or intended by Congress to be left unregulated.

Labor Dispute InjunctionFederal Preemption DoctrineSecondary Boycott ActivityPeaceful Handbilling RightsLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActGarmon DoctrineMachinists DoctrineFirst Amendment IssuesTortious Interference Claim
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,162 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