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. 04-14-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of Public Service Board of San Antonio, a Municipal Board of the City of San Antonio

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. appealed an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction on its attorney's fees claim in a breach of contract suit against the City of San Antonio acting through the City Public Service Board (CPS). The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court determined that Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as applicable to the 2004 contract, did not waive governmental immunity for attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that CPS waived immunity by seeking affirmative relief or engaging in a proprietary function. The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction due to the absence of a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity for attorney's fees.

Governmental ImmunityAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractPlea to JurisdictionTexas Local Government CodeChapter 271Waiver of ImmunityProprietary FunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. 15-25-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Ron Niremberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio

The State sued the City of San Antonio, its Mayor, and its City Manager for ultra vires conduct under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, seeking declarations that the City’s plan to spend taxpayer dollars on travel for out-of-state abortions violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause. The district court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claim was not ripe, and dismissed the suit. The State argues that the City’s plan to fund out-of-state abortion travel violates the Gift Clause by lacking public benefit, failing to serve a public purpose, and not retaining public control over funds. The State contends that delaying judicial review would cause great hardship due to the imminent risk of constitutional injury from the disbursement of funds, which the City intended to expedite before SB 33's effective date or by the end of its fiscal year. The State asserts the case is ripe for review because the illegal activity is "likely to occur," and despite SB 33 prohibiting such funding, the City's belief it can disburse funds by September 30, 2025, keeps the controversy live.

Public Funds MisuseAbortion Travel FundingTexas Gift ClauseRipeness DoctrineUltra Vires ActConstitutional ChallengeState-City ConflictReproductive Rights PolicyTaxpayer MoneyInjunctive Relief
References
89
Case No. 03-23-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

The State of Texas v. the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, and the City of El Paso

This case concerns an appeal by the State of Texas from a district court's judgment declaring the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (TRCA) unconstitutional. The TRCA aimed to achieve statewide regulatory consistency by preempting local regulations and establishing a private cause of action for those injured by preempted local laws. The Cities of Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso initiated a pre-enforcement action, challenging the Act's constitutionality on various grounds, including violations of the Home Rule Amendment and due-course-of-law provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff Cities lacked standing to sue. Specifically, the appellate court found that the Cities failed to demonstrate an "injury in fact" arising from a concrete application of the Act or to establish that their alleged injuries were "fairly traceable" to the State of Texas.

TexasAppeals CourtRegulatory Consistency ActStandingSubject-Matter JurisdictionPreemptionHome RuleDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawInjury-in-fact
References
26
Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Case No. ADJ9597686
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

TOMIE KATO vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering an order directing the City and County of San Francisco (defendant) to pay applicant's attorney $\$ 3,082.00$ for deposition fees. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the fee was unreasonable and requesting sanctions against applicant's attorney. The WCAB deemed the defendant's petition to be a timely objection to the original order. The matter is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to consider the objection and determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. The WCAB denied the request for sanctions against applicant's attorney.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationSection 5710 Attorney Deposition FeesWCJPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5813 SanctionsReasonableness of Attorney FeesDeposition TranscriptMotor Vehicle Accident
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

San Antonio Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of San Antonio

The San Antonio Building and Construction Trades Council (SABTC) and individual representatives challenged the City of San Antonio regarding prevailing wage requirements for construction workers on a convention center hotel project. SABTC argued that Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code mandated prevailing wages, but the trial court denied this, finding that despite being a 'public work', no 'public funds' were used for its construction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that public funds pledged as security for revenue bonds, or the bonds themselves, did not constitute public funds used for the 'construction' of the project under the relevant statute.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksPublic FundsAssociational StandingLabor LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Government CodeRevenue BondsHotel Occupancy TaxStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Augustine v. Parrish

The City of San Augustine filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and its motion for summary judgment. The appellees, Sharon Parrish, Will Parrish, and Wendy Parrish Revey, sued the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act, alleging that a San Augustine City Police officer negligently shot and killed Jed Parrish. The City claimed sovereign immunity and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, finding that the appellees' allegations of negligent use of tangible personal property (the pistol) and negligent implementation of police policy sufficiently waived sovereign immunity under the TTCA. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for summary judgment, concluding that factual disputes raised by the appellees' evidence precluded a finding of good faith necessary for official immunity.

Sovereign immunityOfficial immunityTexas Tort Claims ActNegligencePolice misconductUse of forceInterlocutory appealSummary judgmentPlea to jurisdictionGovernmental liability
References
26
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Antonio v. San Antonio Firefighters' Ass'n, Local 624

The City of San Antonio appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the "evergreen clause" in its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 624 violates the Texas Constitution's debt limitations and public policy. The City argued the clause created unconstitutional debt and improperly restricted its governmental powers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the City failed to establish that the evergreen clause or the entire CBA was void or violated public policy. The court found that the evergreen clause merely extends the CBA's duration and that most pecuniary obligations, contingent on workforce size, do not constitute unconstitutional "debt." Furthermore, the court concluded that the CBA does not improperly cede or restrict the City's governmental or legislative powers, aligning with Chapter 174 of the Texas Local Government Code which authorizes such collective bargaining agreements.

Evergreen ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementDebt LimitationsTexas ConstitutionPublic PolicySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawLabor RelationsFirefighters Union
References
34
Case No. 04-11-00402-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

City of San Antonio, and Its Agent, San Antonio Water System v. Albert Kevin Martin, A/K/A Kevin Martin

Albert Kevin Martin filed a whistleblower action against his former employer, San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and the City of San Antonio, alleging constructive discharge after reporting asbestos pipe disposal concerns to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A jury initially found in Martin's favor, but SAWS appealed, disputing the causal link between Martin's report and his constructive discharge, and challenging the compensatory damages award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of causation, concluding that SAWS's adverse actions were linked to Martin's whistleblowing, despite SAWS's alternative explanations. However, the court determined there was legally insufficient evidence to support the jury's award for past and future compensatory damages, particularly regarding mental anguish and chest pains, as the evidence presented did not meet the required legal standards for establishing such damages. Consequently, the appellate judgment was "AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED," deleting all references to compensatory damages from the trial court's judgment.

WhistleblowerConstructive DischargeRetaliationAsbestosEnvironmental ComplaintTCEQCausationCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal Sufficiency
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 9,577 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