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

Brotherhood of Railway Carmen v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

The plaintiffs, six unions representing employees of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, filed an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant's 'Voluntary Resignation Program.' Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) due to direct bargaining with employees and unilateral changes to collective bargaining agreements. Defendant argued the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railway Arbitration Board (NRAB), as it involved the interpretation or application of an existing contract or past practices. The court determined the dispute was 'minor' because the defendant's claim of past practices regarding voluntary resignation programs was nonfrivolous, placing it within the NRAB's exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentVoluntary Resignation ProgramNational Railway Arbitration BoardMajor DisputeMinor DisputeFederal JurisdictionUnion RightsEmployer Practices
References
4
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2006

Green v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

Plaintiff Frederick D. Green, a conductor for The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), sustained a ruptured eardrum during a mandatory hearing test conducted by Dr. William J. Till, an agent of KCS. Green was subsequently terminated for alleged time sheet falsification, which he claims was a pretext for retaliation due to his injury and intent to file a FELA claim. Green sued KCS under the Federal Employment Labor Act (FELA) for negligence and retaliatory discharge, also alleging state-law retaliation and emotional distress. The Court granted summary judgment for KCS on emotional distress claims, but denied summary judgment on retaliatory discharge, finding these claims are not preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Court granted Green's motion regarding Dr. Till acting as KCS's agent but found a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Dr. Till's negligence, thus denying Green's motion on that issue.

Federal Employment Labor Act (FELA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Retaliatory DischargeNegligenceSummary JudgmentAgency DoctrinePreemptionWorkers' Compensation RetaliationEar InjuryMedical Malpractice
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Hampton

Glen C. Hampton sued Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company under the Federal Employees’ Liability Act for damages resulting from an injury sustained on April 20, 1960. A jury awarded Hampton $100,000.00. The railway company appealed, challenging the admissibility of annuity cost testimony, several instances of jury argument, and the alleged excessiveness of the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the annuity testimony admissible and the jury arguments, though objected to, were not so prejudicial as to require reversal after curative instructions. The court concluded that the $100,000.00 verdict was supported by evidence of Hampton's permanent injuries, ongoing pain, suffering, and significant loss of earning capacity.

Federal Employees' Liability Actpersonal injuryrailway accidentdamagesjury verdictappealadmissibility of evidenceannuity costjury argumentprejudicial argument
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Transportation Union v. DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY, CO.

This case addresses a labor dispute between the United Transportation Union (UTU), Delaware & Hudson Railway Company (D & H), and the National Mediation Board (NMB) under the Railway Labor Act. UTU sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting its right to self-help (strike) after purportedly terminating collective bargaining negotiations with D & H. The NMB intervened, attempting to compel mediation, which UTU resisted, claiming NMB lacked jurisdiction due to proper termination of conferences. The Court, denying UTU's motion for summary judgment, clarified that while mutual termination is not required, an unequivocal termination and good faith bargaining are prerequisites for exercising self-help. Ultimately, the court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding both the unequivocal termination of conferences and UTU's good faith bargaining efforts, thus precluding summary judgment.

Railway Labor ActCollective BargainingNegotiation TerminationSelf-HelpMediationSummary JudgmentGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

Balfour Beatty Rail Inc. (BBRI) sued The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR) for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and Texas Prompt Payment Act violations concerning railway construction delays and extra work. KCSR counterclaimed for breach of contract due to wasted ballast and costs for additional contractors. The court found that BBRI materially breached the contract first, attributing many delays to BBRI's performance issues. While denying most of BBRI's claims, the court awarded BBRI $34,820.35 for four specific change orders. KCSR's counterclaim for wasted ballast was granted for $2,353,299.40, but its claim for other contractor costs was denied due to insufficient proof. Ultimately, the court entered judgment in favor of KCSR for $2,305,737.97 after offsetting BBRI's award, plus prejudgment interest.

Contract DisputeConstruction LawRailway ConstructionBreach of ContractDelay DamagesChange OrdersWasted MaterialsExpert Witness TestimonyQuantum MeruitTexas Prompt Payment Act
References
111
Case No. 13-20-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

Jaime Martinez D/B/A IMJ Truck Repair v. Hauling 365, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a default judgment issued by the County Court at Law No. 10 of Bexar County, Texas, concerning a negligence and breach of contract claim related to a transport truck repair. The appellant, Jaime Martinez d/b/a IMJ Truck Repair, challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial, the sufficiency of evidence for lost profits, and the award of attorney's fees to the appellee, Hauling 365, LLC. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding the first Craddock element (no conscious indifference) unsatisfied. It reversed the attorney's fees award due to a lack of presentment of claim, and remanded the issue of lost profits for a new trial due to legally and factually insufficient evidence.

Default judgmentNegligence claimBreach of contractMotion for new trialCraddock testConscious indifferenceLost profitsSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesPresentment requirement
References
24
Case No. W2007-00436-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2009

Thomas David Jordan v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, A Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway Company, A Corporation

Thomas David Jordan, a Norfolk Southern Railway employee, sustained severe injuries when he was struck by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway train while performing duties between tracks. Jordan initiated a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) lawsuit against Norfolk Southern and a common law negligence claim against Burlington Northern. A jury awarded Jordan $4 million, finding Norfolk Southern 100% at fault. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the jury's verdict, rejecting arguments about state statute preemption, jury instructions on causation, and the excessiveness of damages. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding an inter-railroad Letter Agreement, ruling that Norfolk Southern must indemnify Burlington Northern for its defense costs related to the claim.

FELA claimRailroad employee injuryInter-railroad liabilityNegligence causationFederal preemptionJury damage awardIndemnity contract disputeTrack clearance safetyWorkplace accidentAppellate procedure
References
94
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyatt v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

Appellant sued Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company for unpaid overtime and lost workdays between April 1933 and July 1934, alleging violations of their collective bargaining agreement. The appellees argued that the appellant failed to follow the grievance procedures stipulated in the agreement, which was authorized by the Railway Labor Act. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the appellees, concluding that the appellant must exhaust contractual remedies before pursuing legal action. The appellate court affirmed this decision, reinforcing the requirement to utilize the agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanisms.

Railway Labor ActGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationWrongful LayoffLabor DisputeContract ViolationAppellate ReviewInstructed Verdict
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 647 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