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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.

A longshoreman filed an action against the owner of a vessel for personal injuries due to its negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the longshoreman's rights against the defendant were assigned to his employer and its insurer due to his acceptance of compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court denied the defendant's motion, citing a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s employer and its insurer (who also insured the defendant) and the plaintiff, which allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the action despite the assignment.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuriesNegligenceConflict of InterestsAssignment of RightsMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Case No. 04-05-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

the City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Association, Inc. Kenneth Carey Joe Cochran William McCrae Karen Pena George Baum And Dan Vana Intervenors, Cheri Franklin Ed Berger Dick Chapman Betty Chapman George Pierce Debra Pierce Randy Gurley

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged the standing of a homeowners association and individual property owners to contest the City's proposed annexation of their property. The property owners filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that the annexation was unlawful due to procedural violations of Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and in violation of House Bill 585. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellate court held that the property owners lacked standing to challenge the annexation, concluding that claims based on procedural defects must be brought via quo warranto proceedings and that H.B. 585, which prohibited the annexation, was an unconstitutional local law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the property owners' claims.

Annexation LawStandingPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefTemporary InjunctionQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeConstitutional LawSpecial LawLocal Law
References
25
Case No. M2020-01417-SC-R23-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2021

Affordable Construction Services, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company

Affordable Construction Services, Inc., a general contractor, sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company after the insurer failed to name the contractor as a payee on an insurance proceeds check issued to the insured property owner, Grand Valley Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc., despite damages exceeding $1,000 as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 56-7-111. The case, originating from a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, sought to determine if section 56-7-111 provides a private right of action for a general contractor. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the statute does not expressly grant or imply a private right of action. Consequently, the general contractor has no legal standing to sue the insurance company for noncompliance with the statute.

Private Right of ActionStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawGeneral ContractorProperty DamageCertified Question of LawLegislative IntentTennessee Supreme CourtInsurance ProceedsPayee Requirement
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizen v. M/V TRITON

This Memorandum Opinion addresses an injury sustained by a plaintiff longshoreman in the Port of Beaumont on July 26, 1973, while working for Gulf Stevedore Corporation, an independent contractor for the defendant vessel owner, M/V TRITON. The longshoreman was injured after stepping into an open space between bags of flour in the No. 4 hold, a condition created by improper stowage by the Stevedore during a previous loading in Galveston. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which eliminated unseaworthiness as a basis for vessel liability and shifted the primary duty for a safe workplace to the stevedore. The Court found that the Stevedore was in sole charge of all loading operations, and the vessel owner had no duty regarding the stowage method, thus precluding a finding of vessel negligence. Consequently, the Court entered judgment for the defendant vessel owner, emphasizing that the burden of proving negligence was not met.

Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act1972 AmendmentsVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyUnseaworthiness DoctrineSafe Place to WorkCargo StowageMaritime LawThird Party LiabilityPort of Beaumont
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03117
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Trinajstic v. St. Owner, LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied motions for summary judgment. The case involves Thomas Trinajstic, a laborer, who fell during a renovation project and sued St. Owner, LP, and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party claim for common-law indemnification against Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation. The court found questions of fact regarding whether dust created by Pellegrini's workers contributed to Trinajstic's fall, thus barring dismissal of the Labor Law claim. Furthermore, summary resolution of the indemnification claim was deemed premature due to conflicting evidence on the cause of the fall (dust vs. broken tiles) and the defendants' failure to demonstrate a lack of their own negligence.

Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentThird-Party LitigationWorkplace Safety RegulationsDust HazardPremises Owner LiabilityContractor Negligence
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03339 [205 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Tavarez v. LIC Dev. Owner, L.P.

Plaintiff Ruth Tavarez sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while employed by Collins Building Services, Inc. She alleged negligence and Labor Law violations against LIC Development Owner, L.P. LIC then filed a third-party action against Collins for indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Collins' motion to dismiss LIC's third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision did not apply to LIC and that common-law indemnification was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a 'grave injury'.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law ViolationsThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewGrave InjuryContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,700 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