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

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. 21-0769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Angela Horton and Kevin Houser

This is a concurring opinion by Justice Busby of the Supreme Court of Texas concerning the preemption of state common-law negligence suits against railway companies. The core issue is whether the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Surface Transportation Board (STB) over humped railroad crossings, thereby preempting state claims. Justice Busby joins the Court's opinion, which concludes that such preemption does not occur. The opinion extensively criticizes the current implied obstacle preemption doctrine for being inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause and argues for a "logical contradiction" test grounded in originalism. Furthermore, Justice Busby contends that applying current implied obstacle preemption in this context conflicts with the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for significant shifts in federal and state power. The opinion highlights the unworkable and inconsistent application of existing preemption jurisprudence and concludes that the plaintiffs' common-law negligence claims are not impliedly preempted by ICCTA.

PreemptionFederalismSupremacy ClauseInterstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA)Surface Transportation Board (STB)Major Questions DoctrineState Common LawRailroad SafetyNegligenceStatutory Interpretation
References
89
Case No. 530353
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of Quigley v. Village of E. Aurora

Daniel Quigley, a police officer with established workers' compensation claims for work-related injuries since 1998 and 2004, developed chronic regional pain syndrome. After years of opiate treatment, his pain management specialist, Cheryl Hart, certified him for medical marihuana in May 2018. The employer and carrier denied the variance request, citing federal preemption by the Controlled Substances Act and statutory exemption under Public Health Law. The Workers' Compensation Board approved the variance, which was upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found no conflict preemption and affirmed that workers' compensation carriers are obligated to reimburse for medical marihuana expenses.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsChronic Pain TreatmentMedical MarihuanaVariance ApprovalFederal Preemption DoctrineControlled Substances ActNew York Compassionate Care ActEmployer LiabilityCarrier ReimbursementOpioid Reduction
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabine Consolidated, Inc. v. State

This case addresses whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts state criminal prosecution for criminally negligent homicide. Appellants Tantillo and Sabine Consolidated, Inc. were convicted in Texas after two employees died in a trench collapse, but the Court of Appeals reversed, citing OSHA preemption. This court examined express, implied, and conflict preemption doctrines. It concluded that OSHA does not preempt state criminal laws, as the federal act primarily aims to prevent workplace hazards, while state criminal statutes punish unlawful acts. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of remaining points of error.

OSHA preemptioncriminal negligent homicideworkplace safetystate criminal lawfederal preemptiontrench collapseemployee deathTexas Penal CodeOccupational Safety and Health ActSupremacy Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1996

Eriksen v. Long Island Lighting Co.

Plaintiff Kenneth Eriksen, a dock builder, was injured at a LILCO plant in Glenwood Landing, New York, after slipping on loose gravel and falling into water. He and his wife sued LILCO, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 (1), 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed these claims, citing preemption by Federal maritime law. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of Federal maritime law and the preemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to its strict liability provisions. However, it modified the order, holding that Labor Law §§ 200 (1) and 241 (6) are not preempted as they codify common-law duties and do not impose strict liability, thus supplementing maritime law without conflict.

Personal InjuryLabor LawFederal Maritime LawPreemptionNavigable WatersSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionSafe Place to WorkStrict LiabilityBulkhead Replacement
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24058
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2024

Matter of Buenos Hill Inc. v. Saratoga Springs Planning Bd.

This case concerns Buenos Hill Inc.'s challenge against the Saratoga Springs Planning Board regarding a special use permit for a marijuana dispensary. The petitioner alleged that the Cannabis Law's opt-out provision violated New York's home rule provisions and that the Cannabis Law was preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) under the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court, Saratoga County, dismissed both claims. The court found the home rule challenge was not ripe for adjudication and, even on merits, held the Cannabis Law was a valid general law. Regarding the preemption claim, the court determined the plaintiff lacked standing under the CSA and, additionally, found no conflict preemption between the state and federal laws, citing Congress's consistent policy of non-interference with state-level marijuana legislation.

Marihuana Regulation and Taxation ActCannabis LawControlled Substances ActPreemptionHome RuleZoning LawSpecial Use PermitDeclaratory JudgmentSupremacy ClauseFederalism
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Edison Co. v. City of New Rochelle

This case addresses whether local plumbing ordinances of the City of New Rochelle, Town of Greenburgh, and City of White Plains are preempted by state law or inconsistent with Public Service Law § 31 (4), which governs gas service line installations to residential buildings. A utility corporation challenged these local codes after being prevented from installing gas service lines with its own unlicensed employees. The Supreme Court initially denied the utility's motion for summary judgment, finding no preemption. On appeal, the higher court disagreed, determining that the State Legislature, through the Home Energy Fair Practices Act and Public Service Law, intended to preempt the field of service line installations to ensure uniformity and prevent unreasonable delays. The court found that the local codes, by requiring licensed plumbers for utility service line installations on private property, were inconsistent with state law and imposed additional restrictions on rights granted by state law. Consequently, the local ordinance was declared invalid to the extent it conflicted with state law and regulations, and the City of New Rochelle was enjoined from enforcing those conflicting provisions against the utility.

Utility regulationState preemptionLocal ordinancesPlumbing codesGas service installationPublic Service LawHome RuleDeclaratory judgmentStatutory interpretationRegulatory consistency
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,739 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