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

Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Walker County Agency, Inc.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Walker County Agency, Inc. Hartford had filed a cross-action for contribution, indemnity, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty against Walker County after settling claims with Roy Dean Jackson. Jackson, an employee of a subcontractor to an insured of Hartford, was injured and initiated several lawsuits, including workers' compensation and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims against Hartford. Hartford alleged that Walker County, its agent, improperly provided an insurance binder. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Hartford's claims for contribution and indemnity related to the bad faith settlement. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Hartford's claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, misrepresentation, and common law indemnity regarding the workers' compensation settlement, finding that Walker County failed to negate these causes of action.

Insurance Agent LiabilityBreach of Agency AgreementWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFiduciary Duty BreachSummary Judgment AppealContribution and IndemnityDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Contractual ObligationPrincipal-Agent RelationshipNegligence of Agent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. NO. 03-18-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

John Hatchett, Sandra Hatchett, and JPH Capital LLP v. West Travis County Public Utility Agency

John and Sandra Hatchett and JPH Capital LLP (collectively, the Hatchetts) appealed the trial court’s order granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the West Travis County Public Utility Agency (PUA). The PUA contended that the Hatchetts lacked standing and were immune from suit. The Hatchetts sought declarations to invalidate the PUA’s policies limiting density and impervious coverage on their property and to grant them vested-rights protection under Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Hatchetts’ UDJA claims as ultra vires but reversed and remanded the dismissal of their Chapter 245 vested-rights claim, finding the PUA's immunity was waived and the 'utility connections' exception did not apply.

Vested RightsChapter 245 LGCPlea to JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimPublic Utility AgencyWater ServiceRegulatory AuthorityStanding
References
60
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. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1975

Alberti v. Sheriff of Harris County, Texas

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses severe and inhumane overcrowding and substandard conditions in Harris County detention facilities. The court finds that the Harris County Commissioners Court and Sheriff's Department have failed to comply with federal and state law, as well as a prior Consent Judgment, resulting in constitutional violations for inmates. Key issues include inadequate physical space, poor sanitation, insufficient medical and psychiatric care, understaffing, and a failing Pre-Trial Release Agency hampered by commercial bail bondsmen. The court orders significant reforms, including transferring the Pre-Trial Release Agency's operational control to state District Judges, implementing an objective pre-trial release system, streamlining criminal justice procedures, and mandating comprehensive improvements in jail conditions, staff training, and inmate classification. An Ombudsman is established to monitor compliance, and detailed reporting requirements are set for the defendants.

OvercrowdingPre-Trial Release ReformInmate Constitutional RightsJail Conditions LitigationCriminal Justice System ImprovementHarris County Detention FacilitiesJudicial OversightBail ReformMedical Screening InmatesPsychiatric Care Inmates
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 7,682 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