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

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

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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. Sanders

H. B. Sanders sued Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for trespass, alleging damages from an unauthorized burial of a telephone cable on his property in Marion County. Etex brought in Hutton Construction Company, Inc. and Fanning Engineers, Inc. as third-party defendants, claiming indemnity or contribution for contract non-compliance. Sanders subsequently added Hutton and Fanning as direct defendants. A jury found Etex and Fanning jointly and severally liable for actual damages of $11,900.00 and Etex solely liable for $10,000.00 in exemplary damages. Etex appealed, contesting the damages, the jury's findings, and the denial of indemnity from the third-party defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damage awards and rejecting Etex's arguments regarding the measure of damages, Sanders' alleged obstruction of cable removal, and claims for indemnity or contribution.

TrespassReal Property DamagesExemplary DamagesProperty EasementUtility CableContract DisputeJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewJoint and Several LiabilityIndemnity Claims
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bahr v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves a complaint initiated by Ricky Carnivale, later substituted by Morton Bahr, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, against the New York Telephone Company. The complainant alleged a violation of Section 900-2.0 (subd. c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, pertaining to the transportation of individuals to replace striking employees. The court meticulously analyzed the definitions within the Administrative Code, particularly focusing on what constitutes a 'strikebreaker' and the involvement of parties 'not directly involved in a strike.' The judge concluded that the New York Telephone Company was directly involved in the strike, rendering certain provisions inapplicable. Crucially, the court found a lack of evidence that the individuals brought in met the statutory definition of 'strikebreakers' who 'customarily and repeatedly' offer themselves for employment during a strike. Therefore, the court ruled that a complaint should not be issued against the defendant.

StrikeLabor DisputeStrikebreakersAdministrative CodeNew York City LawUnion RightsEmployer RightsComplaint DenialIndustrial RelationsSubstitute Complainant
References
1
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Shirley

This case concerns an appellee who suffered an electric shock from a broken, defectively insulated wire owned by the appellant, Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Company. The wire, which fell across a heavily charged line of the San Antonio Gas & Electric Company, caused severe injuries to the appellee, including neurosis, paralysis, and heart depression. A jury awarded the appellee $23,500 after finding the appellant negligent, while the San Antonio Gas & Electric Company received an instructed verdict. The appellant challenged the judgment on grounds of improper removal to federal court, insufficient evidence of negligence, and erroneous jury charges regarding damages. The appellate court affirmed the decision, upholding the state court's jurisdiction and the jury's findings, emphasizing the appellant's duty to maintain safe wires given the inherent dangers of electricity.

NegligenceElectric ShockDefective InsulationWire BreakPersonal InjuryDamagesAppealFederal JurisdictionRemoval of CauseJoint Tort-feasors
References
25
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
Oct 03, 1956

General Telephone Company v. City of Wellington

This case involves the General Telephone Company of the Southwest's challenge against rates established by a 1952 city ordinance in Eden, Texas. The company sought a temporary injunction, arguing the rates were confiscatory and led to a net operational loss. Both the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals denied the injunction, citing the company's failure to separate accounting for in-city and out-of-city operations, and a perceived lack of exhaustive negotiations. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, rejecting the separation theory as applied in this context and emphasizing that the core issue was the validity of the existing rates. The Court found the company's evidence of inadequate return and property valuation largely uncontroverted, concluding that a temporary injunction should have been granted to protect the company from irreparable loss while ensuring subscriber protection through a bond.

Utility RatesTemporary InjunctionRate RegulationConfiscationTelephone CompanyCity OrdinanceTexas LawAccounting PracticesJurisdictionAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,417 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