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. E2014-01768-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2015

Yvonne Waters v. Donald Waters

This case involves the appeal of a divorce action between Yvonne Waters and Donald Waters after a 27-year marriage. The trial court divided the marital estate, awarding the wife approximately 68% due to her greater financial contribution and frugality, and also awarded her attorney's fees and costs. The husband appealed the property division and the attorney's fees award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's equitable distribution of marital property but reversed the award of attorney's fees, modifying the total award to cover only discretionary costs, and denied the wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal. The case was remanded for collection of assessed costs.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAttorney's FeesAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFinancial ContributionEarning CapacitySeparate Property
References
17
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. 03-09-00460-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2010

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corporation v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Jona Acquisition, Inc.

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corporation appealed a district court's dismissal of its claims challenging a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) order. Creedmoor sought to invalidate TCEQ's decision to release a service area from its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN), which allowed Carma Easton, Inc. to seek water service from another provider. Creedmoor argued that TCEQ acted beyond its statutory authority and violated federal (7 U.S.C.A. § 1926(b) via Supremacy Clause) and state constitutional rights (Open Courts and Due Process). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding Creedmoor failed to demonstrate it 'provided or made service available' as required by federal law, and that its constitutional claims regarding its CCN lacked merit as it is not a vested property right.

Water Supply CorporationEnvironmental QualityCertificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN)Expedited ReleaseJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunitySupremacy ClauseFederal PreemptionWater CodeTexas Constitution
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corporation appealed a district court judgment that dismissed its claims against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Carma Easton, Inc. Creedmoor sought to challenge a TCEQ order granting Carma an expedited release from Creedmoor's certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN), which would allow Carma to obtain water service from another utility. Creedmoor argued that TCEQ exceeded its statutory authority and that the water code provisions were unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, the Texas Open Courts guarantee, and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Creedmoor failed to demonstrate that it "provided or made service available" to the disputed area, a key requirement for federal protection under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1926(b). The court also found no valid Open Courts or Due Process violations, emphasizing that CCNs do not confer vested property rights.

Water Supply CorporationCertificate of Convenience and NecessityTCEQExpedited ReleaseSovereign ImmunitySupremacy ClauseOpen Courts DoctrineDue ProcessJudicial ReviewWater Rights
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. 05-14-01223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2014

Michael Morford D/B/A Nemaha Water Services v. Esposito Securities, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, concerning an arbitration dispute. Appellee-Plaintiff Esposito Securities, LLC, initiated the original action to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with Appellants-Defendants (Nemaha Water Services entities). The core issue is whether Appellants-Defendants, who balked on a contractual payment obligation related to a transaction, qualify as 'customers' under FINRA Rule 12200, thereby mandating arbitration before FINRA instead of the contractually specified American Arbitration Association (AAA). The trial court granted Appellee-Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA and denied Appellants-Defendants' motion to compel arbitration before FINRA and their subsequent motion to reconsider. This brief argues to affirm the trial court's judgment, contending that Appellants are not 'customers' as defined by FINRA's rules, and that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement to use AAA supersedes any FINRA arbitration claims.

Arbitration AgreementFINRA Rule 12200Customer StatusFinancial ServicesAppealContract DisputeForum Selection ClauseTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActAmerican Arbitration Association
References
40
Case No. 01-15-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2015

the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. National Wildlife Federation

This case involves an appeal filed by the National Wildlife Federation (Appellee) against the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Appellants). The appeal concerns the District Court's judgment of March 6, 2015, which reversed and remanded TCEQ's decision to grant Water Use Permit No. 5821 to the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. The core issue is TCEQ's alleged failure to properly implement Texas Water Code Section 11.085 (l)(2), which requires stringent water conservation and efficiency for interbasin water transfers. The Appellee argues that TCEQ improperly relied on a voluntary guide (Report 362) instead of fulfilling legislative directives for robust conservation standards, and that the District's water conservation plan lacks adequate implementation and enforcement mechanisms, thus failing to meet the 'highest practicable levels of water conservation and efficiency achievable' as mandated by law.

Water ConservationInterbasin TransferEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Water CodeWater Use PermitDrought Contingency PlanRegulatory ComplianceBest Management Practices
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. 01-A-01-9702-CH-00056; 90-66-204
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1997

Ogburn v. The Gas & Water Dept., City of Clarksville

A meter reader, Roy Dean Ogburn, sued the City of Clarksville and its Gas and Water Department after he was fired following a dog attack and subsequent back injury. A jury initially found the defendants liable for handicap discrimination and for depriving Ogburn of his due process right to a pre-termination hearing, awarding him $450,000 in damages. On appeal, the court reversed the jury verdict on the due process claim, concluding that Ogburn, as an employee at will, did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment, despite the city charter's appeals procedure. However, the appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of handicap discrimination, stating there was sufficient evidence that Ogburn was capable of performing his duties. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial on damages alone, as the original award did not differentiate between the two claims, and for reconsideration of attorney fees in light of the altered liability.

Handicap discriminationDue processEmployment at willWrongful terminationCompensatory damagesAttorney feesRemandAppealJury verdictMunicipal employment
References
18
Case No. 02-23-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Shanna C. Granger and Prost Production, LLC

Shanna C. Granger and Prost Production, LLC (Granger) sued Tarrant Regional Water District (the District) for breach of a permit and violations of the takings and due course of law clauses of the Texas Constitution. The District challenged the trial court's jurisdiction based on governmental immunity, arguing the permit was a license, not a vested property interest. The appellate court examined the agreement, titled "Permit," and found it unambiguously granted Granger a non-exclusive right of use for a limited time and purpose, characteristic of a license. Consequently, the court held that the permit did not create a vested property interest subject to the takings clause, and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Granger's claims.

Texas Appellate CourtGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionReal Property LawLicense AgreementLease AgreementContract InterpretationInverse CondemnationTakings ClauseDue Course of Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 7,108 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