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

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. No. 05-11-01377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Noell, David W., City of Carrollton, Carrollton Property Standards Board, Crow-Billingsley Air Park, LTD, Henry Billingsley v. Air Park Common Area Preservation Association, Chad Maisel, Amy Eklund, and Dale Burgdorf

This case involves a dispute between homeowners of Air Park Dallas, a residential airpark community, and a real estate developer (Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. and Henry Billingsley), the Air Park Zoning Committee, and the City of Carrollton. The homeowners sued after the City ordered the airpark’s airport closed following its annexation of a portion of the airport and the passage of a regulating ordinance. The trial court initially found the ordinance facially valid but the closure order invalid, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to homeowners against the City and against the developer for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the closure order but reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, remanding claims concerning its constitutionality. The court also affirmed most of the jury’s findings against the developer and Zoning Committee, modifying only a specific part of the injunction.

Property RightsZoning OrdinanceEasementsBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyMunicipal LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineAirport Regulation
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesis of Mount Vernon, N.Y., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

This case concerns a hybrid proceeding where the petitioner, Genesis project, challenged the denial of building and area variances by the Mt. Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals for a proposed congregate housing facility for the elderly. The petitioner also sought a declaratory judgment that the City of Mt. Vernon Zoning Ordinance's definitions of 'boarding house' and 'family' were unconstitutional. The court found both definitions to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the State Due Process Clause. Consequently, the court granted declaratory relief, allowing the petitioner to construct the facility as a two-family house and also granted the area variances, remanding to the Zoning Board for setting reasonable conditions. A claim for damages and attorney's fees was severed for a separate action.

Zoning OrdinanceDue ProcessConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentUse VarianceArea VarianceBoarding HouseFamily DefinitionElderly HousingNot-for-Profit
References
14
Case No. 2020-02-0173
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2021

Ramey, Joshua v. Sleep Zone, Inc.

Mr. Ramey requested additional workers' compensation benefits from Sleep Zone, Inc., for injuries sustained from a fall while carrying a mattress. Sleep Zone denied the claim based on surveillance video and the authorized treating physician, Dr. Jody Helms, who determined Mr. Ramey’s complaints were not causally related to the fall. Mr. Ramey’s credibility was questioned, especially his argument that the surveillance video depicted his twin brother. The Court found no medical proof supporting his claim and denied his requests for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding he was unlikely to prevail on the merits.

CredibilitySurveillance VideoMedical CausationTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingAuthorized Treating PhysicianMaximum Medical ImprovementInjury ClaimMedical Treatment ComplianceFraud Allegations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noell v. City of Carrollton

This dispute involves claims by homeowners in the Air Park Dallas community against a real estate developer, the zoning committee, and the City of Carrollton. The City ordered the airpark's airport closed after annexing a portion of it and passing an ordinance. Homeowners sued the developer and zoning committee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements, and sued the City challenging the ordinance and closure order. Noell, a homeowner and minority owner of the developer, also challenged the ordinance. The trial court invalidated the closure order and granted relief to homeowners. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidation of the closure order, reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, and remanded some claims to the trial court. It also modified part of the injunctive relief against the developer and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Airpark CommunityEasement RightsMunicipal ZoningNuisance AbatementDue ProcessConstitutional LawContract BreachFiduciary DutyProperty RestrictionsOrdinance Vagueness
References
84
Case No. 07-03-0305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2003

City of Canyon, Texas and Lois Rice v. Kevin Fehr and Brian Goss

The City of Canyon and Lois Rice appealed a trial court's order denying their plea to jurisdiction and granting a temporary injunction to Kevin Fehr and Brian Goss. Fehr and Goss sought to compel the City of Canyon to address a petition for referendum concerning an amendment to a zoning ordinance that re-zoned two tracts of land. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to jurisdiction, ruling that sovereign immunity did not bar the suit and that Fehr and Goss, as qualified voters who signed the petition, had standing. However, the court reversed the temporary injunction, concluding that the Texas Local Government Code §211.015 limits voter-initiated referendums on zoning to the initial adoption of comprehensive zoning regulations, not subsequent amendments or piecemeal repeals of existing ordinances. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Fehr and Goss had a probable right of recovery.

Sovereign ImmunityStanding (Law)Temporary InjunctionRe-zoningInitiative and ReferendumLocal Government CodeStatutory InterpretationHome Rule MunicipalityAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Poughkeepsie v. Flacke

The Town of Poughkeepsie appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed its petition to annul a determination by the Commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), which authorized Dutchess Sanitation Service, Inc. to operate a landfill. The Town argued that the DEC could not act until Dutchess complied with local zoning ordinances and that the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) required explicit findings regarding conflicts with local laws. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the DEC's jurisdiction under the Environmental Conservation Law does not extend to adjudicating local zoning compliance. It further clarified that SEQRA did not preempt or interfere with local zoning ordinances or pending litigation between the Town and Dutchess. The court concluded that both DEC and the Special Term acted properly within their jurisdictions.

Environmental LawZoning OrdinancesState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Landfill OperationsJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawEnvironmental Impact StatementLocal Government AuthorityPermit ApprovalNonconforming Use
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halperin v. City of New Rochelle

This case concerns a hybrid proceeding challenging determinations made by the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle. Petitioners sought review of decisions related to parking and area variances for a house of worship, the approval of a final environmental impact statement, and the alleged overreach of the City Council in enacting a zoning ordinance. The court confirmed the Zoning Board's determinations, finding them rational and not arbitrary or capricious. The petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits, as the court affirmed the Zoning Board's proper application of zoning criteria and adherence to environmental review under SEQRA.

Zoning LawArea VariancesParking VariancesEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewLand Use Agencies
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 217 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