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. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 15-24-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2024

State of Texas v. Harris County, Texas

Appellees, Harris County, Texas, filed a motion requesting the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to vacate an injunction issued on December 6, 2024. The injunction prohibited Harris County from distributing funds under its Community Prosperity Program during the appeal's pendency. Harris County argues that the court improperly relied on uninvoked inherent authority, overreached its power as its jurisdiction was not threatened, and failed to consider required factors for injunctive relief. Harris County asserts that the injunction is unnecessary because the program's payments are not scheduled to begin until May 2025, providing ample time for the court to rule on the merits.

injunctionvacate motionappellate lawTexas courtsHarris CountyState of TexasCommunity Prosperity Programgovernmental immunityultra vires claimsGift Clauses
References
111
Case No. 03-99-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Clayton Miller, D/B/A Trucks, Etc. v. Bell County, Texas, and Dan Smith, Sheriff of Bell County, Texas

Clayton Miller, operating as Trucks, Etc., sued Bell County, Texas, and Sheriff Dan Smith for damages. Miller claimed agents of the Bell County Sheriff's Department negligently released a truck he held title to, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating that Miller failed to establish legislative permission to sue for damages, and merely alleging a violation of law does not waive sovereign immunity for a tort claim seeking damages.

Sovereign ImmunityOfficial ImmunitySummary JudgmentTort ClaimNegligenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewGovernmental ImmunityDamages Claim
References
15
Case No. 03-02-00475-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Hays County, Texas v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership

This case involves an appeal by Hays County against a district court judgment favoring the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The partnership had sought an injunction and attorney's fees, alleging that Hays County violated the Open Meetings Act, the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan submitted to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding regarding the Open Meetings Act and the 'open courts' provision of the Texas Constitution, dissolving the injunction. However, it affirmed that Hays County violated the Texas Constitution (Art. V, § 18) and the Local Government Code due to an invalid action by a single commissioner and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Texas Court of AppealsOpen Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeDeclaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanInjunction
References
31
Case No. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 03-21-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ken Paxton In His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question is whether Governor Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, can issue an executive order (GA-38) that prohibits local governmental entities, such as Harris County, from implementing face-covering requirements. Harris County officials contend these mandates are vital for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, concluding that the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in granting the temporary injunction, as the Governor's actions were likely ultra vires.

Texas Disaster ActExecutive Order GA-38Face Covering MandatesCOVID-19 MitigationLocal Government AuthorityGubernatorial PowersUltra Vires ClaimTemporary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
32
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. 03-00-00398-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2001

Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County, Texas v. Zarina Carlisle

Zarina Carlisle, a senior correctional officer, sued Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting unprofessional conduct by her supervisor, Captain Wendell Gilmore. Carlisle reported Gilmore's cursing and 'bad-mouthing' to Sheriff Joe Pollack, believing it violated county personnel policies and constituted disorderly conduct under the Texas Penal Code. Burnet County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Carlisle failed to allege a 'violation of law' sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed, finding that internal personnel policies do not constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act unless promulgated pursuant to a statute or ordinance, which was not established. Furthermore, Carlisle's allegations did not meet the elements for disorderly conduct. The court concluded that Carlisle failed to plead a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, reversing the district court's denial of Burnet County's plea to the jurisdiction.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeViolation of LawPersonnel PolicyDisorderly ConductTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of Authority
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 11,396 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