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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 09-08-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Philip J. Pohl v. Polunsky Unit

Philip J. Pohl appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court addressed his contentions regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, similarity of claims to previous lawsuits, the trial court's failure to grant leave to file, and the frivolity and legal basis of his claims. The court found that Pohl failed to comply with Section 14.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding exhaustion of remedies and that his motion to waive court costs under Section 14.011 was not sufficiently supported by an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court also found that Pohl did not provide adequate legal authority or analysis to support his claims, thus overruling his issues regarding frivolity and arguable basis in law. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Inmate litigationExhaustion of administrative remediesFrivolous claimsInjunctive reliefPrison Litigation Reform ActPLRATexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 14Chapter 41Res judicata
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Board of Insurance v. Williams

The State Board of Insurance, as Relator, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Mary Pearl Williams to reverse her order denying pleas in abatement, a motion to show authority, and a motion to dismiss in an underlying case where Jim Mattox, the Attorney General, had sued the Board over workers' compensation rates. The Board contended that the Attorney General lacked standing to sue them, as he is constitutionally and statutorily mandated to represent state agencies. However, the court denied the motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the Board possessed an adequate remedy through appeal, despite arguments about inconvenience and needless expenditure. The court reiterated that mandamus is reserved for instances of clear abuse of discretion where no other adequate legal remedy exists.

MandamusWrit of MandamusInterlocutory OrderAdequate Remedy by AppealAbuse of DiscretionStandingAttorney GeneralWorkers' Compensation RatesTravis CountyTexas Civil Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Campbell, Wise & Wright, Inc.

The Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission appealed a temporary injunction granted without notice by the 117th District Court of Nueces County on February 10, 1938. The injunction prevented the Commission from collecting taxes, penalties, or interest under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act from fifty-seven appellees (vegetable and fruit shippers) and from using their private records. The appellees argued the Act was unconstitutional, their employees were exempt as agricultural laborers, or independent contractors. The appellate court, referencing the 'Stephens Case,' determined that an injunction is improper when an adequate legal remedy exists. The court found that the Commission's enforcement actions would involve regular court proceedings where the appellees could present their defense, thus providing an adequate remedy at law. The court also dismissed the argument of preventing a multiplicity of suits, as the State would likely bring a single action per taxpayer. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and dissolved the temporary injunction.

Unemployment CompensationInjunctionsConstitutional LawAgricultural Labor ExemptionIndependent Contractor StatusAdequate Remedy at LawMultiplicity of SuitsState OfficersTaxation DisputesStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

Gaskin v. Harris

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order denied her motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss her complaint, which sought damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment due to procedural prematurity. However, it reversed the dismissal of the legal malpractice claim, finding the plaintiff adequately alleged negligence concerning workers' compensation advice and settlement guidance. The court upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claim as duplicative and the claim for emotional distress damages, limiting recovery in malpractice actions to pecuniary loss.

Legal MalpracticeSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss ComplaintCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Breach of Contract ClaimWorkers' CompensationPecuniary Loss DamagesEmotional Distress DamagesAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. ADJ6454697
Regular
Dec 29, 2014

Kari Moulthrop vs. SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH WORKERS' COMPENSATION (Claims Administrator)

The Appeals Board denied Applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to rescind an order setting a trial on the issue of amending a permanent total disability indemnity rate. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which Applicant failed to demonstrate. The Board found a good faith legal issue regarding whether the indemnity rate constituted a clerical or judicial error, which requires adjudication at trial. Reconsideration remains an adequate remedy if the Applicant is adversely affected by the trial outcome.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderPermanent Total Disability Indemnity RateIrreparable HarmClerical ErrorJudicial ErrorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of Review
References
5
Case No. RQ-0006-GA
Regular Panel Decision

Opinion No.

The opinion from the Texas Attorney General addresses whether the Howard County Commissioners Court can utilize filing fees from the county law library fund (Local Government Code §323.023) to finance online legal research services. Specifically, it evaluates a proposal from the Howard County Bar Association to provide Westlaw access to the general public, jail inmates, judges, and public and private attorneys. A primary concern was the potential for impermissible subsidization of private attorneys and a violation of Article III, Section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the unconstitutional grant of public funds for private purposes. The Attorney General concluded that the relevant statute permits such expenditures for the law library and judges, and any incidental benefit to private attorneys does not render the expenditure unconstitutional, provided there is a predominant public purpose and adequate public control. Ultimately, the decision rests with the commissioners court's discretion to determine if the expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose and is adequately controlled.

Legal Research ServicesCounty Law Library FundPublic Funds ExpenditureConstitutional LimitationsTexas Local Government CodeHoward County Commissioners CourtAttorney General OpinionPublic Purpose DoctrineIncidental Private BenefitContract Law
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 8,582 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