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. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Andrew Sansom Heinz Stefan Roesch Bee Spring, Ltd. Hays County And City of Kyle v. Texas Railroad Commission

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
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. 12-99-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Kenneth Synar, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

Kenneth Synar, a switchman, sued Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) and Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA) for a repetitive-use injury. A jury found UP negligent and in violation of the FSAA, but also found Synar 30% contributorily negligent. The trial court initially reduced the award based on contributory negligence, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the FSAA finding, negating the reduction. However, the appellate court reversed awards for past and future medical expenses due to insufficient evidence. The modified judgment affirmed a total award of $541,300.00 for lost earning capacity and past lost wages.

FELAFSAARailroad Employee InjuryRepetitive Motion InjuryUlnar Nerve NeuropathySwitching Yard SafetyDefective EquipmentForeseeability of HarmExpert Witness AdmissibilityLost Wages
References
95
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franco v. Long Island Railroad

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1981, which granted summary judgment to defendants Liguori and Pastore and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, who was discharged from Long Island Railroad, initially filed 25 causes of action, including defamation and conspiracy against individual defendants, and wrongful discharge against the railroad. After the case was removed to Federal District Court, plaintiff discontinued claims against the railroad, and the 23 common-law causes of action were remitted to the New York State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court again granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, citing pre-emption by the Federal Railway Labor Act. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Railway Labor Act does not apply to common-law actions solely between employees, and therefore denied the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Wrongful DischargeDefamationConspiracyRailway Labor ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal PreemptionCommon-Law ActionsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. W2004-01238-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

Billy K. Pomeroy v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Plaintiff Billy K. Pomeroy, a switchman/brakeman, filed a claim against Illinois Central Railroad Company for injuries sustained due to a malfunctioning track switch. A jury found the railroad 100% at fault and awarded Mr. Pomeroy $500,000 in damages. The trial court denied the railroad's motions for a directed verdict, remittitur, or new trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, addressing issues related to jury instructions, closing arguments, expert testimony, and the denial of a new trial or remittitur.

Federal Employers' Liability ActRailroad NegligenceTrack Switch MalfunctionPersonal InjuryJury VerdictDamagesAppellate ReviewContributory NegligenceProximate CauseExpert Testimony
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,756 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