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. 03-08-00793-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Public Utility Commission of Texas And Electric Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, and Victoria State of Texas And Texas Industrial Energy Consumers

This case involves an administrative appeal challenging a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order that approved Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT)'s formation transactions, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. The district court reversed the PUC order, finding it exceeded statutory authority by granting a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to ETT and erred in denying municipalities' expenses. The appeals court affirmed the district court's remand for reconsideration of municipalities' expenses, but reversed the remainder of the district court's judgment, ultimately affirming the PUC's final order concerning the CCN grant and formation transactions.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionElectric Transmission Texas, LLCCertificate of Convenience and NecessityPublic Utility Regulatory ActStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSubstantial Evidence ReviewRatemaking Proceeding Expenses
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00983 [213 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Nick Castano, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in his personal injury action against Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and Henkels & McCoy, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations. Castano sustained injuries while working on a pipeline project when a heavy pipe allegedly struck his leg. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied Castano's cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend his bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granting Castano leave to amend his bill of particulars. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Castano's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskPipeline ProjectIndustrial CodePleading Amendment
References
17
Case No. NO. 01-87-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1987

Valero Transmission Company v. Mitchell Energy Corporation

This case involves an appeal by Valero Transmission Company against a temporary injunction ordering it to purchase specific quantities of natural gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation, pursuant to an existing gas purchase agreement. The trial court found Valero in breach, leading to gas drainage from Mitchell's leases and imminent lease loss. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, rejecting Valero's arguments regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, illegality based on market demand, the applicability of a force majeure clause, and Mitchell's alleged 'unclean hands.' The court concluded that the injunction served to preserve the status quo and did not require Valero to violate Texas law or Railroad Commission regulations.

Gas purchase contractTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMarket demandForce majeureDrainageLease preservationTexas Railroad CommissionSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Case No. 05-11-01019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. v. Kary Lynn Rollins

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial following a no-answer default judgment. Kary Lynn Rollins sued Big D for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), conversion, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Rollins served Big D by substituted service on the secretary of state after unsuccessful attempts to serve its registered agent. The Court of Appeals found that the secretary of state's certificate conclusively established service and that Big D failed to prove its failure to answer was not due to conscious indifference. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling Big D's arguments regarding the new trial, DTPA claim sufficiency, and damages.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessSubstituted ServiceRegistered AgentDeceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)DamagesMarket ValueAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1978

Claim of Falcone v. Western Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that set the claimant's date of disablement as July 30, 1973. The claimant, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to polyurethane exposure, initially experiencing symptoms in 1966. While a medical report from Dr. Ehret in 1966 identified bronchial asthma, the condition was not considered disabling until July 30, 1973, when the claimant first lost work time due to respiratory issues. The Board's decision, which also discharged the Special Fund from liability under section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was affirmed by the appellate court, finding substantial evidence to support the determination of the disablement date.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchial AsthmaPolyurethane ExposureToluene Diisocyanate (TD1)Date of DisablementWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial FundsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,497 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