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

Edwards v. City of Memphis

The case involves police officers (Appellants) suing the City of Memphis and its Director of Police Services (Appellees) for violating Memphis City Charter Section 67. The officers claimed they were entitled to automatic promotion to Captain after thirty years of service, a rank that the City subsequently abolished. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Section 67 is a retirement tool, not a guarantee of employment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the officers have no legal right to work as Captains, that the rank no longer exists, and that Section 67 only provides for enhanced pension benefits upon retirement, not continued employment in that rank. The court also found the City's decision to abolish the rank was not discriminatory.

Police PromotionCity Charter Section 67Public Employee RightsRank AbolitionPension EnhancementEmployment GuaranteeSummary Judgment AppealMandamus PetitionRes Judicata DefenseMemphis City Government
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04083
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of King v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves Charmaine King and other charter school petitioners seeking to compel the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York to provide COVID-19 screening tests to charter school students and staff, mirroring services offered to public school students. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition broadly, directing respondents to administer tests to New York City-resident children attending petitioners' charter schools to the same extent as public schools, and also to staff. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this judgment, affirming that Education Law § 912 mandates the provision of health screening tests, including COVID-19 tests, to resident children attending non-public schools on the same terms as public schools. However, the appellate court specifically limited the directive to New York City-resident children attending the petitioners' charter schools, excluding staff and non-party schools, as the statute only covers children, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

COVID-19 testingCharter schoolsPublic schoolsEducation Law § 912Health and Welfare ServicesEstablishment ClauseAppellate DivisionSchool districtsJudicial reviewMandate
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. City of Cedar Park

The City of Austin appealed a declaratory judgment that upheld the constitutionality of Senate Bill 421, codified as section 42.024 of the Texas Local Government Code. Austin contended that section 42.024 was an unconstitutional local law that regulated its affairs in violation of article III, section 56 of the Texas Constitution. The court found that several classifications within section 42.024, such as limited-purpose annexation, owning an electric utility, and appropriating water via a transbasin diversion permit, lacked a reasonable basis and did not legitimately distinguish Austin and Cedar Park from other municipalities. The court concluded that section 42.024 was a prohibited local law, reversed the trial court's judgment, and declared the section unconstitutional.

Constitutional ChallengeLocal LawsSpecial LegislationMunicipal BoundariesExtraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)Annexation PracticesLegislative IntentStatutory ConstructionPublic Utility OwnershipWater Rights Permits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagstaff v. City of Groves

Douglas C. Wagstaff, an employee of Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., was injured in April 1965 while delivering caustic soda to the City of Groves due to a ladder slipping. He initially received workmen's compensation from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier for his employer. Subsequently, Wagstaff and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (as intervenor) sued the City of Groves for negligence. The City of Groves moved for summary judgment, citing Wagstaff's failure to comply with a 60-day written notice provision in its charter, a condition precedent for such suits. Wagstaff argued this provision preempted workmen's compensation law and denied due process. The court, however, found no conflict between the city charter's notice requirement and Article 8307, Section 6a of the Workmen's Compensation Act, concluding that the notice provision was a valid condition. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the City of Groves was affirmed due to Wagstaff's non-compliance with the notice requirement.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceWorkmen's CompensationCity CharterNotice ProvisionDue ProcessPreemptionSubrogationThird-Party LiabilityTexas Law
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between City of Oswego & Oswego City Firefighters Ass'n, Local 2707

The City of Oswego appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the Oswego City Firefighters Association, Local 2707. The City contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by contravening the Retirement and Social Security Law and Civil Service Law regarding firefighter retirement contributions. The central issue was whether an expired collective bargaining agreement remained in effect under the Triborough doctrine, thereby obligating the City to pay firefighter contributions to the New York State Police and Fireman’s Retirement System for newly hired employees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the arbitration award was not contrary to statutes or public policy. It held that the Triborough doctrine maintained the terms of the expired agreement until a new one was negotiated, thus the Section 8 exception applied to the firefighters.

ArbitrationPublic EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement BenefitsCivil Service LawRetirement and Social Security LawTriborough DoctrineGrievanceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. Wills, Jr. v. The City of Memphis

John R. Wills, Jr., sought to subdivide his property, Lot 94, in the Belle Meade Subdivision into two lots, but his application was denied by the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board and the Memphis City Council. Wills subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari, leading the Chancery Court of Shelby County to reverse the City Council's decision and remand the case for a rehearing. The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appealed this decision. The appellate court identified an ambiguity in the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the applicability of "contextual infill development standards" (Section 3.9.2) to Wills' property, specifically concerning the definition of "development" in the context of surrounding properties established before 1950. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling, which stated Wills' application complied with all UDC provisions, was premature. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's order, remanding the case for further proceedings to the City Council to definitively interpret and apply UDC Section 3.9.2(B)(1) based on the existing record.

ZoningSubdivision RegulationsLand Use ControlUnified Development Code (UDC)Administrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious DecisionStatutory InterpretationRemand Order
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 8,680 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