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

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
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. 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
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery County v. Fuqua

Montgomery County, Texas, brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a suit filed by Carlton Fuqua and Randolph Bowles. The appellees had sued the County and Kipling Oaks Homeowners’ Association over flooding and drainage issues. The County asserted governmental immunity and a statute of limitations defense. The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the statute of limitations and injunction issues. It reversed the trial court's decision regarding the cause of action under article 6702-1 of the County Road and Bridge Act, dismissing that claim with prejudice due to insufficient pleadings for waiver of immunity. However, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for the nuisance cause of action, deeming the pleadings sufficient. The overall decision was to reverse and remand.

Governmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionMotion to DismissCounty Road and Bridge ActNuisance ClaimFlooding and DrainageProperty DamageWaiver of ImmunityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
25
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hays County v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership

Hays County appealed a district court's judgment that found it violated the Open Meetings Act, Texas Constitution, and Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan. The district court had granted an injunction and attorney's fees to the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The appellate court reversed the findings regarding the Open Meetings Act and the Texas Constitution's 'open courts' provision, and dissolved the injunction. However, it affirmed that a single commissioner's alteration of the plan was invalid as an unauthorized act and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership.

Open Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeUniform Declaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanAbuse of DiscretionStanding
References
31
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 12,835 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