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

2169 Central Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Petitioners 2169 Central Ltd., operator of Shenanigan's Bar, and its president Lewis D. Cross, challenged a determination by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) which imposed a $3,000 civil penalty for employing unlicensed security guards. The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the SLA exceeded its statutory authority and that its determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the SLA possessed the statutory authority to regulate and penalize licensees for violating its regulations, specifically 9 NYCRR 48.3 regarding conformance with governmental regulations. Furthermore, the court determined that the SLA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including police investigator testimony, sworn employee statements, and Department of State certifications, which confirmed the employment of unlicensed security guards. Consequently, the court confirmed the SLA's determination and dismissed the petition.

Liquor LicenseUnlicensed Security GuardsCivil PenaltyStatutory AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawAlbany CountyNew YorkAdult Entertainment ClubLiquor Control Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority

Southwest Airlines Company appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an order issued by the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority. The Authority had granted a franchise to Texas TGV Consortium, which Southwest sought to challenge. The district court in Travis County dismissed Southwest's petition, citing a lack of jurisdiction and standing because no statute provided for judicial review of the Authority's decisions, and Southwest lacked an inherent right to such review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, clarifying that the Administrative Procedure Act's provisions for judicial review are procedural and do not create jurisdiction or waive governmental immunity. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authorization.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawGovernmental ImmunityJurisdictionStandingHigh-Speed RailFranchise LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 03-04-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Bexar Metropolitan Water District v. City of Bulverde, Texas Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority City of Boerne And City of Fair Oaks Ranch

Bexar Metropolitan Water District (BexarMet) appealed the district court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying action involved the City of Bulverde and the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) seeking declaratory judgments against BexarMet in Comal County District Court. These judgments concerned BexarMet's statutory boundaries and its authority to provide water utility services or expand its territory following a 2003 amendment to its enabling act. BexarMet contended that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that boundary contests could only be brought by the attorney general, that Bulverde and GBRA lacked standing, and that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality held exclusive or primary jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Bulverde and GBRA had standing under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and that statutory interpretation, which was central to the case, was within the courts' jurisdiction, not exclusively or primarily with the Commission.

Water RightsWater District BoundariesDeclaratory JudgmentStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsGovernmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
54
Case No. 3-92-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1993

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium

Appellant Southwest Airlines Co. appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review against the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and Texas TGV Consortium. The district court dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and Southwest's lack of standing to challenge the Authority's decision to award a high-speed rail franchise to Texas TGV. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that Section 19 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (APTRA) is a procedural provision and does not independently create a right to judicial review. Furthermore, Southwest failed to demonstrate a vested property right that would entitle it to judicial review apart from statutory authority, as its CAB certificate was insufficient and its claim against "illegal competition" was not based on a permit or regulation from the Authority. The court also found no harm in the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Judicial ReviewJurisdictionStandingAdministrative LawHigh-Speed RailFranchiseProperty RightsDue ProcessTexasCourt of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dreves v. New York Power Authority

Petitioners challenged the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) plan to construct a microwave repeater tower in St. Lawrence County, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and other statutory and zoning issues. The Supreme Court dismissed seven SEQRA-related causes of action as time-barred but allowed two declaratory relief claims concerning zoning and NYPA's statutory mandate to proceed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the negative declaration issued by NYPA's Environmental Division Director was valid and that any earlier SEQRA infractions were cured, making the challenges time-barred. The appellate court also upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction and confirmed that the declaratory claims were timely, as the acts giving rise to relief (tower construction and operation) had not yet occurred.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactMicrowave TowerStatute of LimitationsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefZoning OrdinancesPublic Authorities LawNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Review
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,739 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