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

City of Houston v. Hill

This case is an appeal from a mandamus proceeding where the City of Houston and its controller, George Greanias, challenged a writ of mandamus ordering Greanias to pay Jay Howard Hill. Hill had previously obtained a "bad faith judgment" against the City, which the City sought to set aside through a bill of review due to alleged lack of notice. The appellate court addressed whether the city controller had discretion to refuse payment given the pending bill of review. It ruled that a municipality, exempt from execution, could use a pending bill of review as a defense in a mandamus action, provided it demonstrated a probable right of prevailing and probable irreparable injury. As Hill failed to refute the basis for Greanias's refusal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and denied the writ of mandamus.

MandamusBill of ReviewJudgment EnforcementMunicipal LawGovernment ImmunityJudicial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation LitigationLegal Remedies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dodd v. City of Beverly Hills

Noah Kenneth Dodd sued his former employer, the City of Beverly Hills, alleging wrongful termination due to a violation of the City's nepotism policy. The City contended Dodd was an at-will employee and moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, Dodd challenged the summary judgment, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court found a fact issue regarding the Mayor's authority to terminate Dodd, citing the City's General Personnel Manual which suggested only the City Council could hire or terminate employees. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Wrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAt-Will EmploymentNepotism PolicyDeclaratory Judgment ActMayoral AuthorityCity CouncilLocal Government CodeProcedural Due ProcessAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1952

City of Galveston v. Hill

Plaintiffs Etheridge Hill and Leopold Gonzales sued the City of Galveston and Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for injuries sustained from inhaling poisonous fumes while working for Southern Stevedoring Company. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the City in fumigating grain. The City filed a cross-action against the insurance carrier. A jury found the City not negligent but the Stevedoring Company negligent, leading to a trial court judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs and the insurance carrier. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision due to perceived prejudice from the City's cross-action. This court, however, reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that no reversible error was demonstrated, especially as the issue of insurance was initially introduced by the plaintiffs' own pleadings.

Workers' CompensationLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ActionNegligenceFumigation InjuryEmployer LiabilityInsurance CoverageCross-ClaimsJury FindingsTrial Court Affirmation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. City of Galveston

Etheridge Hill and Leopold Gonzales, longshoremen, sued the City of Galveston for personal injuries sustained from fumigated grain, alleging negligence. Their employer's insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, joined seeking recoupment of compensation benefits. The City filed a cross-action against the insurer for contribution, claiming the insurer was the alter ego of the negligent employer. The trial court allowed this. The jury found the City not negligent but the employer negligent. On appeal, the court reversed, holding the cross-action against the compensation carrier was improper and prejudicial, as the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act limits employer liability and the insurer's right to recoupment is a contract right, not subject to employer's tort liability for contribution.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityContribution ClaimSubrogationCompensation InsuranceJury PrejudiceCross-ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. 10-00-403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2002

Noah Kenneth Dodd v. Beverly Hills, City Of

Noah Kenneth Dodd sued his former employer, the City of Beverly Hills, alleging wrongful termination. The City moved for and was granted summary judgment by the trial court. Dodd appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his termination and the Mayor's authority to fire him. The appeals court found that the summary judgment motion complied with Rule 166a(i) but determined that Dodd's employment status remained at-will, making the reason for termination irrelevant. However, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mayor Gibbs' authority to terminate Dodd, as the General Personnel Manual indicated the city council as the appointing authority. Therefore, the summary judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Wrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAt-Will EmploymentNepotism PolicyMayoral AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawLocal Government CodeGenuine Issues of Material Fact
References
11
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. 2019-06-0971
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2020

Valerio, Rosalind v. City of Spring Hill, Tennessee

Ms. Valerio requested additional medical benefits and reinstatement of temporary partial disability benefits for a left-foot injury she suffered on June 18, 2019. The City of Spring Hill, Tennessee, denied these benefits, asserting she needed no further treatment and was released to return to work without restrictions. The Court found that Ms. Valerio is unlikely to prove she needs additional treatment or is entitled to temporary partial disability benefits, as medical evidence from orthopedists and a physiatrist contradicted her claims of severe pain and ongoing restrictions. Furthermore, investigator observations suggested she exaggerated her symptoms. Therefore, the Court denied Ms. Valerio's requested relief.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityLeft-Foot InjuryContusionOrthopedic EvaluationMRI FindingsMedical CausationExaggerated Symptoms
References
1
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. NO. 02-11-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2012

Gregory Earl Reed D/B/A Hit City Records & Tapes v. County of Tarrant, Tarrant County Hospital District, Tarrant County Community College District, City of Forest Hill, and Fort Worth Independent School District

Appellant Gregory Earl Reed d/b/a Hit City Records & Tapes appealed the trial court’s denial of his equitable bill of review. The bill challenged a default judgment for delinquent property taxes, tax lien foreclosure, and a tax-foreclosure sale obtained by Appellees. Reed contended that he and Ronald Reed, the registered agent, were not properly served, and even if served, it was ineffective as Ronald was no longer a partner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that service upon Ronald was effective because the filed deed showed him as a partner, and there was no indication to Appellees that their notice had failed, thus no due process violation.

Equitable Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentDelinquent Property TaxesTax Lien ForeclosureTax Foreclosure SaleService of ProcessDue ProcessPartnership LawAd Valorem TaxesSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 4,420 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