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

International Freight Forwarding, Inc. v. American Flange

This case involves American Flange ("American") suing International Freight Forwarding ("IFF") for damages due to IFF's failure to deliver steel plugs to American's Mexican buyer, Tri-Sure. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of American, awarding $20,620.00 in damages plus attorney's fees and court costs. IFF appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing and its findings regarding bailment, invoice alteration, necessary documentation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that title to the goods revested in American upon Tri-Sure's refusal of delivery, thereby establishing American's standing. The court also upheld the existence of a bailment between American and IFF and found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings on documentation, functionality of the plugs, and the amount of damages for conversion.

BailmentConversionStandingCommercial LawUniform Commercial CodeContract LawDamagesAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kingston v. City of New York

Issues of fact remain regarding the cause of a fire. The Fire Department report cited an electrical heater, but the decedents’ mother testified it was not plugged in. Plaintiffs' expert attributed the fire to a defective chimney. Furthermore, questions of fact persist concerning whether Budget Fuel’s worker assumed a duty to clean or repair the chimney, or to warn of dangerous conditions, given conflicting deposition testimonies on brick removal and warnings. The defendant Budget Fuel’s remaining contentions were found to be without merit.

Fire CauseElectrical HeaterDefective ChimneyDuty of CareNegligenceConflicting TestimonyIssues of FactExpert WitnessAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 2018-05-0417
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2018

Touchette, Velvet v. Speedway, LLC

The employee, Velvet Touchette, sought an expedited hearing for medical benefits related to chest and left shoulder pain sustained while working for Speedway, LLC. She alleged injury while reaching into a cabinet to check a coffee urn plug. Although the Court found inconsistencies in her accounts of the incident, it determined the injury arose from a 'peculiar or additional hazard' of her employment, not an idiopathic cause. Speedway denied the claim due to alleged idiopathic injury and lack of medical causation. The Court granted the expedited hearing order, compelling Speedway to authorize reasonable and necessary treatment with an orthopedist at Seven Springs Orthopedics.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsChest PainShoulder PainCostochondritisMuscle StrainCredibilityCausationIdiopathic Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1998

Bailey v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Capital District

Plaintiff Robin Bailey, an electrical supervisor, was struck in the forehead by a falling concrete core while working on a construction site owned by the YMCA. The incident occurred after he had plugged in an extension cord on an elevated running track and returned to the ground floor. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the injury was associated with an elevated risk. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff's work on the ground floor did not involve an elevation-related risk requiring safety devices, and the concrete core did not constitute material being improperly hoisted or secured.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityElevation RiskSummary Judgment ReversalWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionConstruction SitePlaintiff InjuryEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. 03-11-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2013

Deecye Clayton Bedell v. State

Deecye Clayton Bedell brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's order that granted the State's plea to the jurisdiction concerning his counterclaim for a bill of review. The underlying dispute originated from the Railroad Commission of Texas, which ordered Bedell to pay penalties and plug wells due to violations, leading to a 2010 suit by the State to recover these costs. Bedell argued he lacked proper notice of the administrative hearing and was not the responsible party. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Bedell failed to demonstrate good cause for not exhausting his judicial review remedies after becoming aware of the administrative order. The court also dismissed Bedell's complaints regarding the trial court's jurisdiction over the State's claims against him for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionBill of ReviewInterlocutory AppealJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDue DiligenceTexas Court of AppealsTravis CountyRailroad Commission of Texas
References
24
Case No. 03-97-00392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

Union Pacific Resources Company and Tetra Applied Technologies, Inc. v. Loretta Chilek Phoenix Horizontal, Inc And Great West Energy and Exploration, Inc.

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, challenging a class action certification. Appellants Union Pacific Resources Company and Tetra Applied Technologies, Inc. contested the certification of a class represented by Loretta Chilek, Phoenix Horizontal, Inc., and Great West Energy and Exploration, Inc. The underlying suit alleges that appellants' improper plugging of the Nana Newton Well in Lee County caused damage to numerous other wells and mineral interests due to water flow into the Austin Chalk formation. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion, focusing on numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequate representation, predominance of common issues, and superiority of a class action. Ultimately, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the class certification order.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealOil and GasWell PluggingMineral InterestsNegligenceTrespassNuisanceJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06041
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2014

Abelleira v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, Fernando Abelleira et al., appealed an order denying their cross motion for summary judgment on liability for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The injured plaintiff, a construction foreman, was hurt when a defective pneumatic pipe plug exploded during a pressure test. The Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants had supervisory control over the work or actual/constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also properly denied and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) and (b) (1)) were either inapplicable or general safety standards. The defendants' cross-appeal was withdrawn, and the Appellate Division affirmed the order.

Construction accidentPersonal injurySummary judgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeCommon-law negligencePremises liabilitySupervisory controlAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 03-12-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Roland Oil Company v. Railroad Commission of Texas

This administrative appeal concerns the Railroad Commission of Texas's final order cancelling an extension of time for Roland Oil Company to plug inactive wells. The Commission found Roland lacked a good-faith claim to operate its lease due to a 15-month cessation of production. Roland argued that the cessation was excused by a force majeure event (a Commission severance order) and that its repair and testing activities constituted "Unit Operations" sufficient to maintain the lease. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's decision. The appellate court concluded that the force majeure clause in the Unit Agreement required events beyond Roland's reasonable control, which the severance order was not, as it resulted from Roland's own non-compliance. Additionally, the court found that "Unit Operations" specifically refers to activities contributing to the production of oil and gas, which Roland's work on inactive wells did not.

Oil and Gas LawAdministrative LawTexas Court of AppealsRailroad Commission of TexasInactive WellsPlugging RequirementsForce Majeure ClauseUnit AgreementContract InterpretationSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1996

City of New York v. Job-Lot Pushcart

This case addresses whether New York City's Administrative Code § 10-131 (g), which imposes strict regulations on the sale and use of toy guns, is preempted by the 1988 Federal Toy Gun Law (15 USC § 5001). The City initiated an action against defendants, including JA-RU, Inc., for distributing toy guns that violated the local ordinance's color, trade name, and barrel plug requirements. Defendants argued that the Federal law, which sets its own marking standards, preempted the City's stricter regulations. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' denial of preemption, ruling that Congress did not intend to expressly or impliedly preempt all local regulation of toy gun markings. The Court found that the Federal law's preemption clause is limited, and that compliance with both Federal and City regulations is possible and aligns with the public safety objectives of both statutes, as the City's law is not inconsistent with the Federal statute.

PreemptionFederal LawLocal LawToy GunsAdministrative CodePublic SafetyStatutory InterpretationSupremacy ClausePolice PowersNew York City
References
27
Case No. 13-12-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2013

Keith Redburn v. Charmelle Garrett, Individually and as City Manager of the City of Victoria, Texas and Lynn Short, Individually and as Director of Public Works of the City of Victoria, Texas and City of Victoria, Texas

Appellant Keith Redburn appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claims against Charmelle Garrett, Lynn Short, and the City of Victoria, Texas. This opinion is a rehearing of a prior decision, with the court withdrawing its earlier opinion. The case involves a property dispute where Redburn plugged a culvert on his land, which the City claims is part of its storm sewer system. Redburn sued for injunctive relief against alleged trespass and for a declaratory judgment. The City filed cross-claims, including for an easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Garrett and Short based on governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, finding their actions within the scope of employment. It also affirmed the dismissal of Redburn's trespass claim against the City due to sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Redburn's declaratory judgment claim against the City regarding an easement, finding it germane to the City's own cross-claim for an easement. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentIntentional TortTrespassDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefMunicipal Storm Sewer System
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 10 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