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. 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. 05-17-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Petrina L. Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office

Petrina Thompson, a former employee of the City of Dallas’s City Attorney’s Office, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to her former employer and dismissing her employment discrimination claims with prejudice. Thompson contended the trial court erred by denying her motions for new trial, reinstatement, and to modify the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Thompson failed to establish a meritorious defense against the argument that the Dallas City Attorney's Office was a non-jural entity lacking capacity to be sued. Additionally, her post-judgment motions did not satisfy all elements of the Craddock test for a new trial, particularly the lack of delay or injury to the appellee.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestLack of Capacity to SueMisnomerAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsNon-Jural Entity
References
14
Case No. 03-11-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Michael Hamilton v. Mark Washington, in His Capacity as City of Austin Civil Service Director Art Acevedo, in His Capacity as City of Austin Chief of Police The City of Austin, Gary Cobb and Stephen Edmonds, in Their Capacity as Members of Austin Firefighters

Michael Hamilton, an Austin Police Department officer, was indefinitely suspended and sought an appeal with the Austin Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission. His appeal was rejected as deficient for failing to include specific statutory language. Hamilton then sued various City of Austin officials and the City, seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and to set aside the Commission's decision, along with a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, ruling that the district court had jurisdiction over constitutional and ultra vires claims against the officials but lacked jurisdiction for reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and the breach of contract claim due to unexhausted administrative remedies.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActMandamusUltra ViresCivil Service ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementStandingConstitutional Law
References
50
Case No. 15-24-00081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2025

City of Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and the Dallas Morning News, Inc.

This appeal arises from a Texas Public Information Act (PIA) dispute between the City of Dallas and the Dallas Morning News. The City withheld information sought by the News, citing the PIA's litigation exception due to a pending HUD investigation into housing discrimination allegations by Darryl Baker. The Attorney General ruled the information public, as it had already been disclosed to HUD. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Dallas Morning News, compelling disclosure and awarding attorney fees. This appellate court affirmed, holding that the City waived its argument regarding potential litigation with Baker by failing to properly raise it to the Attorney General, as required by the PIA.

Public Information ActTexas Government CodeLitigation ExceptionWaiverAttorney General DecisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesOpen Records RequestHUD Investigation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. 07-14-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson

Korey Ferguson, a police officer for the City of Plainview, Texas, was terminated after an alleged incident of excessive force involving citizen Amber Washington. Ferguson contended that the City violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023(a) and (b) by failing to provide him with a copy of Washington's signed complaint before taking disciplinary action. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ferguson, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, based on the belief that noncompliance with the statute mandated this remedy. The City of Plainview is appealing this decision, arguing that reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy for the statutory violation, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Ferguson's reinstatement given his unfitness as an officer, and that the order to reinstate him is against public policy.

Police MisconductExcessive ForceReinstatementDue ProcessStatutory ComplianceTexas Government CodeCivil ServiceAdministrative LawPublic PolicyAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 10,938 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