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. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. M2005-02719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

Wilson County Board of Education v. Wilson County Education Association and Steve Johnson

An assistant principal, Steve Johnson, was transferred to a teaching position by the Wilson County Board of Education. He, along with the Wilson County Education Association, grieved the transfer under a locally negotiated agreement. After the grievance was denied through internal steps, they sought to compel arbitration in the Chancery Court for Wilson County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that assistant principals are statutorily similar to principals, giving the director of schools unrestrained authority to transfer them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that despite the agreement mentioning "binding arbitration," it also stated that the arbitrator "may recommend" remedies, creating an inconsistency that prevented a "meeting of the minds" on the final resolution procedure, thus rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Education Professional Negotiations ActGrievance ProcedureArbitration AgreementMeeting of the MindsContract InterpretationTeacher TransferAssistant PrincipalStatutory AuthoritySchool Board PowersBinding vs. Advisory Arbitration
References
29
Case No. No. 11-12-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Alfred Elwess v. Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Alfred Elwess, injured in an auto accident, sought to recover under his underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Appellees). The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Elwess failed to obtain permission to settle with the tortfeasor and that his damages were covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Elwess's failure to obtain permission materially prejudiced the Appellees' subrogation rights and that his damages were payable under workers' compensation, especially since his employer did not have such coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentUnderinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance Coverage DisputeSettlement Without Consent ExclusionSubrogation RightsWorkers' Compensation ExclusionMaterial BreachActual PrejudiceAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
7
Case No. Nos. 03-14-00283-CV and 03-14-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. American Youthworks, Inc., D/B/A American Youthworks Charter School Honors Academy, Inc., D/B/A Honors Academy And Azleway Inc., D/B/A Azleway Charter School

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner of Education Mike Morath against temporary injunctions granted to three charter holders: American YouthWorks, Inc., Honors Academy, Inc., and Azleway, Inc. The charter holders sued after the Commissioner initiated charter revocation proceedings under new 2013 legislation targeting underperforming open-enrollment charter schools. The district court had temporarily enjoined further revocation actions. The appellate court examined whether the charter holders' claims, including constitutional and ultra vires assertions, could overcome sovereign immunity and invoke the district court's inherent jurisdiction, given statutory prohibitions on judicial review. The court ultimately concluded that the pleadings did not sufficiently invoke such inherent jurisdiction, and thus, the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the vacating of the injunctions and dismissal of the suits.

Education LawCharter SchoolsCharter RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionsDeclaratory ReliefUltra Vires Claims
References
71
Case No. 03-01-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

HEB Ministries, Inc. Southern Bible Institute And Hispanic Bible Institute/Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown/HEB Ministries, Inc.

HEB Ministries, Inc., operating Tyndale Theological Seminary, challenged the constitutionality of Texas Education Code provisions requiring private postsecondary institutions to obtain state certification or accreditation for granting degrees and using terms like "seminary." The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board counterclaimed for injunctions and administrative penalties. The district court found the degree-granting regulation constitutional but the "seminary" term regulation unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the degree-granting regulation and upheld the $170,000 penalty. It reversed the district court's finding on the "seminary" term, declaring it constitutional, and reinstated a $3,000 penalty, remanding for a permanent injunction consistent with its opinion.

ConstitutionalityFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseTexas Education CodeHigher Education RegulationDegree-Granting AuthorityAccreditation StandardsReligious Educational Institutions
References
43
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Honors Acad., Inc. v. Tex. Educ. Agency

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the vacation of temporary injunctions and dismissal of a lawsuit brought by American YouthWorks, Inc. (AYW) and Honors Academy, Inc. (Honors), two open-enrollment charter schools. The schools challenged the Commissioner of Education's decision to revoke their charters due to sustained unacceptable academic and financial performance, as mandated by the Texas Education Code. The Court held that charter schools, as governmental entities, do not possess a vested property right in their charters, thus rejecting due process and contract impairment claims. Furthermore, the Court dismissed ultra vires claims, ruling that the Commissioner's interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions were within his broad authority, especially considering legislative intent to limit judicial review of such administrative decisions.

Charter School RevocationOpen-Enrollment Charter SchoolsSovereign ImmunityUltra ViresDue ProcessContract ClauseVested Property RightsTexas Education CodeAcademic AccountabilityFinancial Accountability
References
44
Case No. 03-23-00279-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Mike Morath, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education for the Texas Education Agency v. Texas State Teachers Association

The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a challenge brought by the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) against Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, concerning the validity of administrative Rule 97.1075(c)(1). TSTA contended that the rule, which grants "final" and "sole" authority to operating partners over district employees assigned to charter schools, infringed upon teachers' statutory rights. The trial court sided with TSTA, declaring the entire subsection invalid. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of parts (C) and (D) of the rule, agreeing they improperly curtailed teachers' rights by making decisions unreviewable. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding parts (A), (B), and (E), deeming them valid because they pertain to employees directly hired by the operating partner and do not impact the statutory protections of public school district teachers. The final ruling was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Administrative LawEducation LawCharter SchoolsStatutory InterpretationAgency RulesTeachers' RightsTexas Education AgencySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule Validity
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 893 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