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. 2022 NY Slip Op 07285
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Northacker v. County of Ulster

Plaintiff Joyce A. Northacker was injured in a car accident while being transported by volunteer Barbara Hyde through the Neighbor to Neighbor program, a joint effort by the County of Ulster and Jewish Family Services (JFS). Hyde lost control of her vehicle, which then collided with a public bus driven by Carla F. Bryant. Northacker initiated actions against the County, JFS, Bryant, and Burton Gulnick Jr., the administrator of Hyde's estate. The Supreme Court partially granted Northacker's motion for summary judgment on liability against the County, JFS, and Gulnick. The Appellate Division affirmed the County's vicarious liability for Hyde's negligence based on judicial estoppel. However, the court reversed the summary judgment against JFS, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding its control over Hyde. The Appellate Division also dismissed the complaint against Bryant, determining she reacted reasonably to an emergency situation. Lastly, the court affirmed the denial of JFS's motion for summary judgment concerning the County's cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification, again due to existing factual disputes.

Vicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorJudicial EstoppelEmergency DoctrineNegligenceIndemnificationContractual ObligationVolunteer Driver ProgramAgency Relationship
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between County of Ulster & Ulster County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n

Elíseo Baldizzi, a correction officer with Ulster County Sheriffs Department, sought General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits for an illness he claimed was work-related. After his claim was denied, the respondent initiated arbitration, resulting in an award in Baldizzi’s favor. Petitioners, the Ulster County Sheriffs Department and County of Ulster, then commenced a CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it violated public policy by not establishing a clear link between the illness and duties. The Supreme Court denied their motion and confirmed the award, agreeing with the arbitrator's finding that Baldizzi's illness was directly traceable to an incident during his employment. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no valid basis to disturb the arbitrator's award, as the arbitrator had indeed found a direct causal link.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCorrection OfficerIllnessDuty-Related Illness
References
3
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadors v. Ulster County

This case involves multiple female corrections officers (Plaintiffs Meadors, Legg, Watson, Reyes) at Ulster County Jail who filed charges of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation against Ulster County and several individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Legg also alleged pregnancy discrimination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied the request for severance and granted summary judgment on NYSHRL and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as many disparate treatment and retaliation claims due to untimeliness or lack of sufficient evidence. However, summary judgment was denied for Plaintiffs’ Title VII hostile work environment claims against Ulster County, Plaintiff Reyes’ Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation claims related to her termination, and Plaintiff Legg’s pregnancy discrimination claim against Ulster County. Corresponding § 1983 claims for these surviving allegations against Ulster County and Defendant Van Blarcum will also proceed to trial.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimsSection 1983 ClaimsSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityCorrectional Officers
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n & Monroe County/Monroe County Sheriff

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had denied a petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted a cross-petition to vacate it. The arbitration award mandated that Monroe County provide firearms and training to its deputies in the Civil Bureau of the Monroe County Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court had ruled that the award contravened public policy by infringing upon the Sheriff's discretionary authority under Judiciary Law § 400. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the public policy exception did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning an arbitration award. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, thereby confirming the original arbitration award and denying the cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementMonroe County SheriffCivil Bureau DeputiesFirearms TrainingHealth and SafetyAppellate Court DecisionVacating Arbitration AwardConfirming Arbitration Award
References
4
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 14-08-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes County Judge, John Bertling-County Commissioner Pct 1., and Pam Finke-County Commissioner Pct 4

The case involves Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson (appellants) appealing a trial court's denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Grimes County Commissioners Court and specific county officials (appellees) to cancel a roadway dedication on a portion of Hill Forest Lane that encroached on their property. The core dispute centers on whether the cancellation of the roadway dedication was a mandatory ministerial act under Texas Local Government Code section 232.008(e) or a discretionary act under section 232.008(h), which applies if the cancellation would prevent the interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development. The appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of section 232.008(h), specifically concerning the existence of a "proposed interconnection" and "pending or existing development" on an adjacent property. Consequently, neither party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Roadway DedicationWrit of MandamusLocal Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsSubdivision CancellationMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActAppellate Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 6,653 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