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. 02-20-00161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2020

in Re Caprice Garcia

This case involves Caprice Garcia, a criminal defense attorney, seeking mandamus relief against an order to pay $3,600 in attorney's fees to Tyler Melton and Proclaim Roofing, LLC. The fee award was related to a trial subpoena duces tecum issued in a criminal case, which the trial court deemed an abuse of process due to short notice. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked statutory authority under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Article 39.14(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue the order. Furthermore, even if inherent authority existed, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings of bad faith and significant interference with core functions. As Garcia, a non-party to the criminal case, had no adequate remedy by appeal, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its order.

Mandamus reliefAttorney's feesSubpoena duces tecumAbuse of discoveryCriminal procedureNon-party sanctionsTrial court authorityInherent powersStatutory constructionTexas appellate courts
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. W2015-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn Tillilie

This case involves Carolyn Tillilie's appeal of a Fayette County Circuit Court order mandating a $27,000 security bond for the care of three horses, following cruelty charges. The core legal question revolves around appellate subject matter jurisdiction: whether the bond and abandonment provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-210(g)(2) constitute a civil matter or part of criminal procedure. The Court of Appeals, having been transferred the case back from the Court of Criminal Appeals, determined that these provisions are integral to criminal procedure, not a distinct civil forfeiture. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Animal CrueltyHorse WelfareSecurity BondForfeiture LawAppellate JurisdictionCriminal ProcedureCivil ProcedureDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationAbandonment of Property
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campos v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellants, Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community, Justice Assistance Division, and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act for sexual harassment and assault while incarcerated at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims, finding the appellees to be state entities immune under section 1983 and the claims for injunctive relief moot. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, specifically those related to premise defect, use of tangible personal property, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, allowing for further discovery and amendment of pleadings.

Sovereign immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to jurisdictionSection 1983Premise defectTangible personal propertyNegligent hiringNegligent supervisionSexual harassmentSexual assault
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levias v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice

Plaintiff Oscar Levias, an African-American male, sued Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) under Title VII, alleging failure to promote and retaliation. Levias claimed he was denied promotions to Assistant Plant Manager in November 2000 (when Danny Ticknor, a white male, was reassigned) and February 2002 (when James McDaniel, a white male, was hired), and to Plant Manager in April 2001 (when Alan Albright, a white male, was assigned). He also filed an EEOC complaint in June 2001, asserting discrimination and later retaliation. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment regarding Albright's appointment, finding Levias failed to establish he sought the position. However, the court denied summary judgment for the other failure-to-promote claims and the retaliation claim, concluding that Levias presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find pretext or a mixed motive for discrimination and retaliation. The court discussed the impact of Desert Palace v. Costa on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm, affirming that direct evidence is not required for a mixed-motive instruction in Title VII cases.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasMixed-Motive TheoryPretextEEOC
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Plaintiffs Glen Beaumont and Jared Fielder, correctional officers, sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The claims arose from an incident where a Black lieutenant made racially charged and gender-derogatory remarks. Following this, the plaintiffs reported the incident and filed EEOC charges, alleging retaliation through denial of promotion, job reassignment, negative performance entries, and denied training. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the single incident of harassment, while offensive, was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Additionally, the court found that the alleged retaliatory actions either lacked a causal connection to protected activity or were not materially adverse employment actions under Title VII standards.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentCorrectional OfficersFederal CourtFifth CircuitProtected Activity
References
140
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The case involves Brian Edward Simons, an incarcerated individual who sued TDCJ for injuries. The central legal question is whether TDCJ received "actual notice" of Simons's claim, a requirement under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court considered the recent amendment to Government Code section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites to suit jurisdictional, and applied it retroactively. Analyzing the "subjective awareness" standard for actual notice, the court found that TDCJ's internal investigation, which concluded Simons was at fault, and communications from Simons's legal assistant, did not demonstrate TDCJ had subjective awareness that its own fault contributed to Simons's injury. Consequently, the court held that TDCJ lacked actual notice, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed Simons's claim for want of jurisdiction.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticeSubjective AwarenessGovernmental Unit ImmunityJurisdictional PrerequisitesRetroactive Application of StatuteProcedural LawSummary Judgment MotionPlea to Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 08-20-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2021

Bibiana Flores v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Bibiana Flores, a former correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), appealed the trial court's decision granting TDCJ's plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment. Flores alleged discrimination and retaliation claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after her termination in 2013, claiming unlawful employment practices due to a disability. The central issue revolved around whether her request for a shift change to attend physical therapy constituted a protected activity under the TCHRA's retaliation provisions. Citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent in Lara II, the court concluded that Flores failed to demonstrate her accommodation request alerted TDCJ to a reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Flores's claims due to her failure to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, thereby affirming the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimDisability DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeTCHRASovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionSummary JudgmentProtected ActivityReasonable Accommodation
References
28
Case No. 08-22-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2023

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Rita Tidwell

Rita Tidwell sued her former employer, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), alleging retaliatory termination for filing a workers' compensation claim after a job injury. TDCJ appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals examined whether Tidwell provided sufficient jurisdictional facts to waive TDCJ's immunity, specifically focusing on a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination. The court concluded that Tidwell failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, finding insufficient circumstantial evidence to support a causal connection or to show TDCJ's stated reason for termination (exhaustion of leave options under a uniformly enforced policy) was pretextual. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment in favor of TDCJ.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyPrima Facie CaseCircumstantial EvidenceCausal LinkModified Duty AssignmentAdministrative Separation
References
28
Case No. 09-06-039 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2006

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Brian Edward Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a case brought by Brian Edward Simons for injuries sustained during incarceration. The central legal question involved whether TDCJ had "actual notice" of Simons's claim, specifically subjective awareness of its fault, under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The majority opinion retroactively applied a 2005 amendment to the Government Code, Section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites jurisdictional. The court concluded that TDCJ did not have actual notice and reversed the trial court's order, dismissing Simons's claim for lack of jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion challenged the retroactive application of the statute and argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding actual notice.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticePlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationJurisdictional RequirementsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate Jurisdiction
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 4,173 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