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. 2-07-128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

City of the Colony, Texas AND City of Frisco, Texas AND North Texas Municipal Water District v. North Texas Municipal Water District and City of Frisco, Texas AND City of the Colony, Texas

The City of The Colony, Texas, entered into a tri-party contract in 1998 with the City of Frisco, Texas, and the North Texas Municipal Water District for the construction and operation of a regional wastewater system. The Colony later ceased payments and sued Frisco and the District for breach of contract, declaratory judgment that no contract was formed, and rescission. The trial court largely granted summary judgment to Frisco and the District, leaving only certain claims for trial. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding The Colony's claims and the District's appeal. However, for Frisco's appeal, the court reversed the jury's $0.00 damages award, rendering judgment that The Colony owed Frisco $642,863.98 for breach of contract.

Contract LawWastewater SystemMunicipal LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelAppellate Review
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.

Plaintiffs Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. sued the City of El Paso, its Mayor, and City Council after the City awarded a bid contract for a water blasting unit to Team Eagle, Inc., instead of to Waterblasting Technologies. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contract was void and an injunction preventing its performance, alleging violations of Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and lack of standing, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that while Section 252.061 waived the City's governmental immunity for injunctions, the contract's full performance rendered the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. Additionally, Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. lacked standing as a bidder because the contract was for equipment, not 'construction of public works.' Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. had standing as a property tax-paying resident. The court also dismissed ultra vires claims against City Officials, as these only allow prospective relief, and the contract was already performed. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed all claims against the City, Mayor, and City Council.

Governmental immunitySubject-matter jurisdictionStandingMootnessUltra vires actsBid contractPublic worksTexas Local Government CodeInterlocutory appealDeclaratory judgment
References
70
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston

Seven cities initiated a lawsuit against the City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, asserting both contract and tort claims stemming from their water supply relationship. Texarkana invoked governmental immunity, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed that governmental immunity does not shield Texarkana from contract claims, citing a legislative waiver derived from the "plead and be impleaded" language in the Texas Local Government Code. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the tort claims, ruling that these claims are barred by governmental immunity because providing water services falls under Texarkana's governmental functions as defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Consequently, the contract claims were left pending, and the tort claims were dismissed.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipalitiesContract LawTort LawWaiver of ImmunityStatutory InterpretationTexas Local Government CodeWater UtilitiesPolitical SubdivisionsHome-Rule Municipalities
References
49
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. 06-04-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2004

City of Texarkana, Texas, D/B/A Texarkana Water Utilities v. Cities of New Boston, Hooks, DeKalb, Wake Village, Maud, Avery, and Annona, Texas

The City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, appealed a trial court's decision regarding governmental immunity in a lawsuit brought by seven other cities. These cities had sued Texarkana for various contract and tort claims related to water supply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that governmental immunity does not bar the contract claims, allowing them to proceed. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision on the tort claims, holding that governmental immunity does apply to and bars these claims, leading to their dismissal. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code, concluding that the phrase 'plead and be impleaded' acts as an unambiguous legislative waiver of immunity from suit for contract claims for home-rule municipalities.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityContract LawTort LawMunicipal LawWater UtilitiesTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWaiver of Immunity
References
46
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. M2008-02844-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2010

Lee Masonry, Inc. v. City of Franklin, Tennessee Stansell Electric Company, Inc. v. City of Franklin, Tennessee

Two trade contractors, Lee Masonry, Inc. and Stansell Electric Company, Inc., sued the City of Franklin for breach of contract, alleging the City failed to prevent delays caused by other contractors and withheld retainages. The City defended by citing a 'no damages for delays' clause, untimely notice of claims, and the contractors' acceptance of time extensions without reserving rights to increased compensation. The trial court found all the City's defenses invalid and awarded damages to the contractors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding the delays were within the City's control, notice requirements were met or waived, and the executed change orders did not waive the contractors' right to additional compensation. The court upheld the damages awarded for loss of productivity, extended field overhead, and professional fees.

Contract LawConstruction ContractsBreach of ContractDelay DamagesNo Damages for Delay ClauseContractual Notice RequirementsWaiver of Contract TermsChange OrdersAccord and SatisfactionLoss of Productivity Damages
References
30
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,439 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