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. 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. 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
Case No. 08-20-00039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2021

Don Zimmerman v. City of Austin And Spencer Cronk, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Austin

Don Zimmerman, a taxpayer in Austin, sued the City of Austin and its City Manager for allocating $150,000 for abortion access support services. Zimmerman argued the expenditure was illegal, violating both unrepealed Texas criminal abortion statutes and the Texas Constitution's Gift Clause. The trial court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court ruled that the criminal abortion statutes were rendered null and void by Roe v. Wade, thus Zimmerman's first claim lacked a legal basis. Furthermore, the court found Zimmerman's Gift Clause claim was not ripe for review, as the funds had not yet been dispersed and depended on several future contingencies.

Taxpayer StandingUltra ViresGovernmental ImmunityAbortion AccessTexas Criminal Abortion StatutesRoe v. WadeTexas Constitution Gift ClausePlea to JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineAdvisory Opinions
References
46
Case No. 03-22-00524-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2024

City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos// the State of Texas v. the State of Texas// City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos

This case involves an appeal regarding the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bills 1004 and 1152, which affect fees municipalities can charge utility providers for public rights-of-way. The McAllen Plaintiffs, a group of 58 Texas cities, and the City of Houston (collectively, the Cities) challenged these statutes, arguing they violate the Texas Constitution's gift clauses by granting public value without sufficient consideration. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Cities, declaring SB 1152 unconstitutional, and granted in part the State's motion regarding SB 1004. The appellate court found a material fact question regarding the adequacy of consideration for SB 1004's $250 fee limit, reversing and remanding that portion. For SB 1152, which exempted certain providers from one fee if they paid another, the court affirmed its unconstitutionality, ruling that it constitutes an unconstitutional gratuity as it eliminates consideration for one type of access.

Texas Court of AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawGift ClausePublic Rights-of-WayUtility FeesTelecommunicationsCable ServicesWireless Services
References
0
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 4,136 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