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. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
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. 05-20-00855-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Emanuel Lewis, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of Certain Dallas County Detention Service Officers v. Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity

Officer Emanuel Lewis, a detention security officer, initiated a lawsuit against Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in her official capacity, seeking injunctive relief concerning the operation and conditions of the Dallas County Jail amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Lewis, on behalf of himself and a class of Dallas County detention service officers, alleged the Sheriff acted ultra vires by failing to maintain a sanitary jail and abate a public health nuisance, and was negligent. The trial court granted Sheriff Brown's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Lewis failed to plead an actionable ultra vires claim as the Sheriff's actions were within her discretionary authority, and the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims seeking solely injunctive relief.

COVID-19Jail ConditionsGovernmental ImmunityUltra ViresInjunctive ReliefTexas Tort Claims ActDiscretionary AuthorityMinisterial DutiesPublic Health NuisanceClass Action
References
30
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. 09-04-477 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2005

James Vandevender v. Honorable G. Mitch Woods, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Texas and Jefferson County, Texas

James VanDevender, a deputy sheriff, appealed a trial court's decision regarding his entitlement to full salary continuation after an on-the-job injury. He argued that Article III, Section 52e of the Texas Constitution, which authorizes counties to pay injured law enforcement officials, should be interpreted to allow salary payments beyond the expiration of a sheriff's term if the deputy is re-deputized and the disability continues into a subsequent term. The trial court had ruled that his benefits ceased with the end of the sheriff's initial term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plain language of Article III, Section 52e clearly states that salary payments 'shall cease on the expiration of the term of office to which such official was elected or appointed,' and this limitation applies even if the deputy is rehired for additional terms.

Public Official InjurySalary ContinuationConstitutional LawGovernment EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTerm LimitsJudicial ReviewTexas Court of AppealsDeputy SheriffJefferson County
References
9
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. 03-99-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1999

Margo Frasier, Travis County Sheriff, in Her Official Capacity And Travis County, Texas v. Elvina Yanes, Janet Cisneros and Patricia Mitchell

Three detention officers in the Travis County Sheriff's office were injured while performing their official duties. They sought a declaratory judgment asserting their entitlement to full salary during recovery under Article III, Section 52e of the Texas Constitution. Sheriff Margo Frasier and Travis County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the constitutional provision was not self-enacting, did not waive sovereign immunity, and that the officers failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied the plea. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Article III, Section 52e is self-enacting, implicitly waives sovereign immunity, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required for pure questions of law.

Law Enforcement OfficersConstitutional EntitlementSovereign Immunity WaiverDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionTexas Constitutional LawPublic Official SalaryTravis CountyJudicial ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
24
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. 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. 14-08-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes County Judge, John Bertling-County Commissioner Pct 1., and Pam Finke-County Commissioner Pct 4

The case involves Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson (appellants) appealing a trial court's denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Grimes County Commissioners Court and specific county officials (appellees) to cancel a roadway dedication on a portion of Hill Forest Lane that encroached on their property. The core dispute centers on whether the cancellation of the roadway dedication was a mandatory ministerial act under Texas Local Government Code section 232.008(e) or a discretionary act under section 232.008(h), which applies if the cancellation would prevent the interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development. The appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of section 232.008(h), specifically concerning the existence of a "proposed interconnection" and "pending or existing development" on an adjacent property. Consequently, neither party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Roadway DedicationWrit of MandamusLocal Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsSubdivision CancellationMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActAppellate Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 7,269 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