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
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1987

Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corp. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning the City of New York's plan to increase the number of buildings used as a shelter for homeless men at the Greenpoint Hospital site. Petitioners, including the Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corporation, sought compliance with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the filing of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and an injunction against using the West Building. The Supreme Court initially granted relief. On appeal, the judgment was modified, deleting findings on environmental impact and vacating the injunction. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making administrative decisions regarding environmental impact and that an emergency exemption applied to the West Building, allowing the city to proceed.

Homeless Shelter ExpansionEnvironmental ReviewLand Use ProcedureInjunctionEmergency ExemptionGreenpoint HospitalSEQRA ComplianceCEQR ComplianceULURP ComplianceJudicial Review Scope
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1991

Save Audubon Coalition v. City of New York

This case involves petitioners challenging the City of New York's approvals for the Audubon Research Park project in Manhattan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review Act (CEQR), and Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). Petitioners specifically contested amendments to the Zoning Resolution permitting biological research in C6 zones and the site-specific approvals for the Audubon Research Building, claiming environmental impact statements (EIS) were flawed regarding public health and safety and that public notice was inadequate. The court determined that respondents had adequately addressed environmental concerns, provided reasoned elaborations, and fulfilled public notice requirements, despite minor procedural omissions. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed, validating the Board of Estimate's rationally based and non-arbitrary decisions.

Environmental ReviewZoning AmendmentsLand Use PlanningSEQRACEQRULURPPublic HearingsManhattan DevelopmentUrban RenewalBiomedical Research Facilities
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2006

Land Master Montg I, LLC v. Town of Montgomery

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. 03-96-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1997

Marshall Land v. AT & S Transportation, Inc.

Marshall Land sued his employer, AT & S Transportation, Inc., claiming a failure to provide a safe work environment after sustaining a back injury. AT & S, a nonsubscriber to the workers' compensation system, filed a counterclaim for sanctions under Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court awarded AT & S $48,000 in attorney's fees as sanctions against Land, finding his pleadings groundless, brought in bad faith, and false, and that Land committed fraud. Land appealed, arguing the sanctions order was defective for not stating particulars of good cause and that the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Land waived the complaint regarding lack of particularity by not objecting at trial and that the partial record provided was insufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion regarding the sanctions.

SanctionsRule 13Appellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceWaiverGood CauseAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens v. Giuliani

The petitioners, individual New York City residents and the New York City Coalition for the Preservation of Gardens, sought to enjoin the City of New York from constructing low-cost housing on former community garden sites in the Lower East Side and Harlem. They argued that the City's actions, particularly those of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the City Council, and the Mayor, violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the General Municipal Law by improperly waiving environmental and land use reviews. The court first addressed standing, finding that the petitioners lacked a legally cognizable interest in the properties, as their use was either unlicensed or subject to revocable licenses that had been revoked. Subsequently, the court reviewed the HPD's SEQRA determination, concluding it was rational to classify the projects as Type II actions, exempt from exhaustive environmental review, and rejected claims of improper project segmentation. Finally, the court upheld the City Council's waiver of land use review under the General Municipal Law, finding the construction of one-to-four unit dwellings with incidental commercial space consistent with the law's purpose. Consequently, the respondents' motions were granted, and the petition was dismissed.

Environmental LawLand Use LawSEQRAStanding (Legal)Community GardensLow-Cost Housing DevelopmentUrban RenewalGovernment DeterminationsType II Actions (SEQRA)Segmentation (Legal)
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. and Mike Latta v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, Llc

This case addresses whether a landowner can legally challenge a CO2 pipeline owner's claim of eminent domain power, granted via a common-carrier permit from the Railroad Commission. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, secured such a permit by simply checking a box on a form, prompting landowners Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., and Mike Latta to contest the pipeline's legitimacy as a public utility. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that merely registering as a common carrier does not automatically confer eminent domain power or prevent landowners from seeking judicial review. The Court established a new standard, requiring pipeline companies to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' that their pipeline will genuinely serve the public by transporting gas for external customers, not solely for the owner or its affiliates. Concluding that Denbury Green failed to demonstrate this public use as a matter of law, the Court overturned the appellate court's decision and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Eminent DomainCommon Carrier StatusCO2 PipelineProperty RightsPublic Use DoctrinePrivate UseRailroad CommissionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Natural Resources Code
References
21
Case No. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 11,362 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