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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Erie Railroad

The plaintiff, Samuel Cunningham, was discharged from the Erie Railroad Company in 1955. He had sued the Railroad and The United Railroad Workers of America, Inc., C.I.O., Local 1463, alleging discriminatory expulsion from the Union and wrongful discharge by the Railroad. After an initial dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in 1959, the case was retried in 1965. The District Court found that the Union engaged in "hostile discrimination" against Cunningham regarding his dues payments, treating him differently from other members. Consequently, his discharge by the Railroad, based on the Union's request, was deemed unlawful under the Railway Labor Act and the Union Shop Agreement. The court granted judgment in favor of Cunningham against both defendants for $9,583 in damages, with the Union liable to indemnify the Railroad.

Railway Labor ActUnion Shop AgreementHostile DiscriminationWrongful DischargeDues PaymentSeniority RightsIndemnificationLabor LawFederal CourtDamages
References
1
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaelin v. Long Island Railroad

The plaintiff filed an action against the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), alleging that LIRR denied him employment as a locomotive engineer-trainee due to its CETA-funded hiring practices, violating the CETA 'maintenance of effort' regulation and his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The LIRR moved for summary judgment, relying on a Department of Labor finding that no CETA violation occurred. The court granted summary judgment in favor of LIRR, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce CETA regulations and had no protected property interest in the employment position, thereby dismissing his civil rights claim.

Summary JudgmentEmployment LawCivil RightsCETAStandingProperty InterestAdministrative LawFederal CourtDismissalLong Island Railroad
References
11
Case No. W2013-01605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2014

Delores Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Plaintiff Delores Blackmon sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging her husband's death from mesothelioma was caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The railroad moved for summary judgment, arguing a prior release signed by Mr. Blackmon barred the current suit, which the trial court granted. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the boilerplate nature of the release and the lack of conclusive evidence that Mr. Blackmon understood the risk of mesothelioma at the time of signing made summary judgment inappropriate under the Wicker approach for FELA releases. The court emphasized the need to determine the parties' intent regarding known risks, not just known injuries.

FELAMesotheliomaAsbestosisRelease ValiditySummary JudgmentKnown Risk DoctrineKnown Injury DoctrineBoilerplate LanguageOccupational ExposureToxic Substances
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Illinois Central Railroad

Theo Jennings, a trackman, sustained a disabling knee injury when a 'dry rotted' maul handle broke during spike driving. He sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to an unsafe workplace and equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railroad. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Jennings presented insufficient evidence of the Railroad's negligence. The court dismissed arguments regarding maul exposure and prior breakages as speculative and determined that using a maul was not inherently unsafe, thus not requiring the Railroad to provide automated alternatives.

Federal Employers Liability ActRailroad IndustryWorkplace SafetyDefective ToolsSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimDry RotMauls and SpikesEmployee InjuryEvidence Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. No. 16565
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Franks

Robert Lee Franks sued Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained from a caboose derailment in 1961. A jury found the railroad negligent, exonerated Franks, and awarded $116,250 in damages. The railroad appealed on multiple grounds, including objections to medical testimony, the refusal to submit certain issues regarding employee status and rule violations, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all of the railroad's points, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict in favor of Franks.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjuryRailroad AccidentCaboose DerailmentNegligencePost-Concussion SyndromeDamages AwardedAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony AdmissibilityExcessive Damages Claim
References
18
Case No. 02-21-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

Greg Hanson v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company

Greg Hanson, a roadmaster for Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company, appealed a summary judgment that denied his claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Hanson alleged that he sustained an injury after falling from a hi-rail truck, attributing the incident to exhaustion from excessive work hours. He argued that the Railroad negligently assigned him duties beyond his physical capacity, a condition he claimed the Railroad was aware of through his conversations with his supervisor the day prior to his injury. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas, at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. The court found that Hanson's statements to his supervisor regarding long hours were not sufficient to reasonably infer that the Railroad had notice of his dangerous exhaustion. Furthermore, the court declined to impose a duty on the Railroad to monitor an experienced employee's fitness to work, emphasizing the employee's responsibility to report fatigue.

FELASummary JudgmentEmployee ExhaustionNegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of EmployerRailroad IndustryWork InjuryAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farley v. Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiffs Edward Farley and Thomas Finn, representing the United Transportation Union (UTU) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) respectively, sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They argued that Metro-North, after receiving an exemption from Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) regulations, became subject to FLSA's overtime requirements. Metro-North contended it remained exempt under FLSA § 13(b)(2), which applies to common carriers by rail subject to ICA provisions, despite its administrative exemption. The court interpreted the legislative intent of both acts, concluding that the FLSA exemption was to prevent conflict with existing federal railroad regulations and that Metro-North remained functionally 'subject to the provisions' of the ICA due to continued ICC oversight and the revocability of its exemption. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Metro-North, denying the plaintiffs' claims for overtime and liquidated damages.

FLSA exemptionICA exemptionrailroad employeesovertime compensationstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentcommon carrierlabor unionswage and hourfederal regulation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Pacific Railroad v. Williams

Seymour Williams, a former Union Pacific Railroad Company employee, filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim for injuries sustained at a train derailment site. The trial court declined Union Pacific's proposed foreseeability instruction, leading to a jury verdict for Williams, which was affirmed by the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the trial court erred by not submitting a foreseeability instruction when evidence regarding the railroad's knowledge of dangerous conditions was disputed. The court clarified that foreseeability is an "essential ingredient" of the railroad's duty under FELA, and conflicting testimony necessitated jury deliberation on this element. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

FELARailroad NegligenceForeseeabilityJury InstructionsDuty of CareRemandAppellate ReviewTrial ProcedureWorkplace InjuryEmployer Liability
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,051 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