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

Pelham Council of Governing Boards v. City of Mount Vernon

This case addresses a special proceeding initiated by the Pelham Council of Governing Boards, an unincorporated entity comprising the Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor, the Town of Pelham, and the Pelham Union Free School District. The petitioner sought to annul a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon in January 2000, which rezoned a 14.55-acre site for the Sanford Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The core issue was the petitioner's standing to bring the action. The court examined associational standing, noting that while three of the four member municipalities might have individual standing under the Westchester County Administrative Code, the Pelham Union Free School District would not. Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper representation of its members' views or a necessity for organizational standing in this context, granting the respondents' defense and dismissing the petition for lack of standing.

Organizational StandingAssociational StandingLand UseZoningMunicipal LawCapacity to SueEnvironmental Review (SEQRA)Mount Vernon City CouncilPelham MunicipalitiesSchool District Standing
References
18
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. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
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

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. 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. 17-0713
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Luis Garcia v. City of Willis, Leonard Reed, in His Official Capacity as [Mayor] of the City of Willis, James Nowak in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Willis, Hector Forestier, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Willis

Luis Garcia, representing a putative class, filed suit against the City of Willis and its officials, challenging the constitutionality of red-light camera statutes and a city ordinance, seeking declaratory, injunctive relief, and a refund of civil penalties paid. The trial court denied the city's plea to the jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding Garcia failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that governmental immunity barred his reimbursement claim. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Garcia lacked standing for his prospective claims due to having already paid the fine and facing no imminent future harm. Furthermore, his reimbursement claim was barred by governmental immunity because he voluntarily paid the fine without utilizing administrative remedies that would have provided a stay. Regarding his constitutional-takings claim, the Court found that although governmental immunity does not apply, Garcia was still required to exhaust administrative remedies before initiating a takings claim in district court, as the administrative process had the potential to moot his claim. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Garcia's claims.

Red-light camerasConstitutional challengeAdministrative remediesStandingGovernmental immunityUltra viresDeclaratory judgmentInjunctive reliefCivil penaltyTraffic enforcement
References
32
Case No. E2013-00441-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

David G. Young, Individually and as City Administrator for the City of Lafollette v. City of Lafollette

This interlocutory appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge action brought by former city administrator David G. Young against the City of LaFollette. The central legal question is whether the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act’s (GTLA) non-jury provision applies to a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA) when brought against a governmental entity. The trial court had denied LaFollette's motion to strike Young's jury demand, permitting this appeal. The Court of Appeals, referencing its precedent in Sneed v. City of Red Bank, reversed the trial court's decision. It concluded that the GTLA's non-jury requirement is applicable to TPPA claims against municipalities, thereby requiring the case to proceed without a jury.

retaliatory dischargejury trialgovernmental immunityTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Governmental Tort Liability Actmunicipal liabilitystatutory interpretationinterlocutory appealemployment lawsovereign immunity
References
22
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,878 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