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

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Boyce Iron Works, Inc.

Boyce Iron Works sued Southwestern Bell Telephone and others for property damages resulting from a fire that occurred during a burglary. The fire started after a silent burglar alarm system, connected via a telephone line provided by Southwestern Bell, malfunctioned. Boyce alleged negligence and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A jury initially found in favor of Boyce, awarding significant damages. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Boyce failed to obtain a finding that a defect in the telephone equipment caused the alarm malfunction, and that there was no evidence that Southwestern Bell's alleged misrepresentations or course of conduct were a 'producing cause' of Boyce’s damages. The court rendered judgment that Boyce take nothing from Southwestern Bell.

Property DamageBurglar Alarm SystemNegligenceDeceptive Trade Practices ActProducing CauseAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSpecial IssuesJury FindingsReversed Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarigul v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Amplified Wiring Systems, was injured while attempting to connect a cable line to Cablevision hardware on a utility pole owned by New York Telephone Company (NYTel). Plaintiff fell from his ladder, sustaining severe eye injuries. Plaintiff brought action against NYTel alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The IAS court granted NYTel's motion for summary judgment, finding NYTel was not an 'owner or agent of the owner' under the Labor Law. Judge Mazzarelli dissents, arguing that NYTel, as the owner of the pole who leased space to Cablevision, should be held responsible under Labor Law § 240 (1) for ensuring worker safety, citing precedents like Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply and Coleman v City of New York. The dissent would grant plaintiff's summary judgment on the § 240 (1) claim but affirm dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawScaffolding LawOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionUtility PoleCable InstallationConstruction AccidentStatutory InterpretationNondelegable Duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salzler v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Richard Salzler, a Village of Arcade employee, suffered injuries when the aerial basket truck he was working from rolled downhill due to a defective emergency brake and prematurely retracted outriggers. Salzler, who had just installed a transformer on a jointly owned utility pole, was thrown 12 feet to the ground. The Supreme Court granted Salzler partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, holding defendant New York Telephone Company, a pole owner, absolutely liable for failing to provide proper safety devices. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, categorizing it as construction work. However, the Appellate Court found that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as the defendant lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendant on these two causes of action, while affirming the other rulings.

Construction AccidentWorkplace InjuryElevation HazardDefective EquipmentSafety DevicesAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentLabor LawNon-delegable DutyAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 01-1142
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2004

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. David Garza

David Garza, an employee of Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (SWBT), filed a workers' compensation claim after an incident. SWBT subsequently disqualified him from his lineman position and later terminated his employment, citing his safety record. Garza sued SWBT for violating the Anti-Retaliation Law, alleging retaliatory discharge. A jury found SWBT liable, awarding both actual and punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment regarding liability and actual damages, concluding there was sufficient evidence of a statutory violation. However, the Court reversed the award of punitive damages, finding no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice on the part of SWBT. The Court also extensively discussed the elevated standard of appellate review required when a higher standard of proof, such as 'clear and convincing evidence,' is mandated at trial.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationAnti-Retaliation LawPunitive DamagesActual MaliceClear and Convincing EvidenceLegal Sufficiency ReviewAppellate Review StandardsEmployment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSafety Violations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. City of Wellington

This case concerns a temporary injunction sought by General Telephone Company of the Southwest against the City of Wellington to prevent the enforcement of a telephone rate ordinance (No. 333) and a penalty ordinance (No. 332). The telephone company argued that the rates set by the city were confiscatory, yielding less than a 2% return. Both the trial court and the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals denied the injunction. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that a return of less than 2% was unreasonable, and that the lower courts erred in their interpretation of the 'status quo' and the requirement for separating urban and suburban operations for rate-making purposes. The court concluded that the telephone company had demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on final hearing, irreparable loss, and adequate protection for customers through a bond.

Telephone Rate DisputeTemporary InjunctionConfiscatory RatesPublic Utility RegulationRate of ReturnConstitutional GuaranteesDue ProcessProperty RightsJudicial ReviewDiscretionary Authority
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1956

General Telephone Co. v. City of Wellington

This case concerns a temporary injunction in a telephone rate dispute under Art. 1119, Vernon’s Texas Civ. Stats. General Telephone Company of the Southwest sought to prevent the City of Wellington from enforcing rate ordinance No. 333, which fixed local telephone charges, and penalty ordinance No. 332. The petitioner argued the rates were confiscatory, yielding less than a 2% return on property value. Both the trial court and the Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals denied the temporary injunction, citing no abuse of discretion, a small net return, and the lack of rate separation between urban and rural areas. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a return of less than 2% is unreasonable and that a single community exchange operation is a proper unit for rate-making purposes, thus making the injunction refusal an erroneous application of law to undisputed facts.

Rate DisputeTemporary InjunctionTelephone Utility RegulationConfiscatory RatesFair Return on InvestmentPublic Utility LawCity OrdinancesJudicial Review of RatesSingle Exchange OperationConstitutional Guarantees
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hegar v. Sunstate Equip. Co.

Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, which rents heavy machinery, included delivery and pick-up fees in its Cost-of-Goods-Sold (COGS) deduction under Texas Tax Code section 171.1012. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Glenn Hegar, audited Sunstate and disallowed these deductions, leading to an assessment of nearly $130,000 in taxes and $11,000 in penalties and interest. Sunstate paid under protest and sued for a refund, winning at the trial court. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Sunstate's delivery and pick-up costs are not eligible for COGS deduction under section 171.1012(k-1) or section 171.1012(i). The Court clarified that the deduction is for costs of acquiring or producing the equipment, not for selling or distributing it.

Franchise TaxCOGS DeductionTax CodeHeavy Equipment RentalDelivery FeesPick-up FeesTax AuditSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1977

Falcon v. General Telephone Co.

Mariano S. Falcon, a Mexican-American, filed a class-action lawsuit against General Telephone on April 3, 1975, alleging discrimination in hiring and promotion. The court found that Falcon himself was discriminated against in promotions but not in hiring. For the class, General Telephone discriminated in hiring but not in promotions. The relief granted includes awards for backpay, overtime pay, loss of job security, and six percent interest. The court denied monetary relief for shift differential pay, potential promotions, and "individual initiative" as too speculative. Damages were granted up to the end of "phase I" of the trial, and attorney fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIClass ActionRacial DiscriminationMexican-AmericanBackpayPromotionsHiring PracticesBurden of ProofAttorney Fees
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,356 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