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. 15-24-00081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2025

City of Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and the Dallas Morning News, Inc.

This appeal arises from a Texas Public Information Act (PIA) dispute between the City of Dallas and the Dallas Morning News. The City withheld information sought by the News, citing the PIA's litigation exception due to a pending HUD investigation into housing discrimination allegations by Darryl Baker. The Attorney General ruled the information public, as it had already been disclosed to HUD. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Dallas Morning News, compelling disclosure and awarding attorney fees. This appellate court affirmed, holding that the City waived its argument regarding potential litigation with Baker by failing to properly raise it to the Attorney General, as required by the PIA.

Public Information ActTexas Government CodeLitigation ExceptionWaiverAttorney General DecisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesOpen Records RequestHUD Investigation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Jill Herz, P.C.

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction against Jill Herz, P.C.'s claim for attorney's fees under the Texas Labor Code. Herz represented Clifford Beamon, a firefighter who received worker's compensation benefits from the City and later secured a third-party settlement. Herz sought attorney's fees from the City's reimbursement amount, but the City asserted governmental immunity. The appellate court reviewed the plea de novo and concluded that the Texas Labor Code, specifically section 417.003, does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against municipalities acting as self-insurers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and remanded the cause.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodePlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealReimbursementSelf-Insured MunicipalityStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vernon v. City of Dallas

A Dallas police officer was injured in an off-duty altercation in Garland, Texas, after identifying himself as a policeman and intervening in a verbal disturbance. He sought worker's compensation, arguing he was 'always on duty' and had a duty to act under state law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment against the plaintiff. The court held that state statutes (Code of Criminal Procedure articles 6.05 and 6.06) did not impose a duty on the officer to act outside his jurisdiction (City of Dallas). Furthermore, for worker's compensation purposes, being 'on call 24-hours a day' does not relieve an employee from proving the injury occurred while furthering the employer's business, which was not established in this case. The court emphasized that the authority of a peace officer is limited to his jurisdiction, unless specifically dispatched to assist another entity.

Workers' CompensationPolice MisconductOff-Duty PoliceJurisdictional AuthoritySummary Judgment AppealCourse of Employment DoctrinePeace Officer DutiesTexas LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Dallas

Betty Gates sued the City of Dallas for denial of health insurance benefits after the City took over administration of its self-insurance plan and stopped payments for her multiple sclerosis treatment. The trial court initially awarded Gates unpaid benefits and $120,000 in attorney's fees under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2226 and Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 1.14-1(7). The court of appeals reversed the attorney's fees award, applying a strict rule that "corporation" in a statute does not include municipal corporations unless expressly stated. This court reversed the court of appeals, holding that article 2226 applies to municipal corporations when they act in a proprietary capacity, such as entering an insurance contract. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to determine the reasonableness of the attorney's fees.

Attorney's FeesMunicipal CorporationsProprietary FunctionsGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationInsurance BenefitsContract LawRemandTexas LawHealth Benefits
References
14
Case No. 11-02-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Al Ellis v. City of Dallas

Al Ellis appealed a trial court judgment awarding the City of Dallas $40,857.59 for conversion of money related to a workers' compensation lien. The City of Dallas cross-appealed regarding additional attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. Ellis, an attorney for Gregory Ford, had settled Ford's third-party tortfeasor lawsuit. Despite knowing of the City's statutory subrogation interest, Ellis disbursed the settlement money, converting a portion owed to the City. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on the conversion and rejecting Ellis's arguments. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretionary decision not to forfeit Ellis's attorney's fees and the calculation of prejudgment interest, noting a standstill agreement tolled its accrual.

ConversionWorkers' Compensation LienAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestFiduciary DutySufficiency of EvidenceLaw of the CaseAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTortfeasor Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Lowenberg

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Jim Lowenberg and others against the City of Dallas. The plaintiffs challenged a 1994 Dallas City ordinance that required commercial building owners to obtain a registration certificate and pay a fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional occupational tax. The City rescinded the fee in 1995 but continued collection for the period it was active. After an initial federal lawsuit was dismissed, appellees refiled their claims in state court. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the appellees, awarding refunds and attorney's fees. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the appellees' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, classifying their challenge as a facial challenge to the ordinance, with the limitation period starting from the ordinance's passage in 1994.

Class ActionOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational TaxStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFacial ChallengeAs Applied ChallengeTexas LawMunicipal FeesProperty Owners
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Bradford

Shirley S. Bradford, a public health nurse for the City of Dallas, sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling to her principal work address. She sought worker's compensation benefits, claiming she was in the course of her employment. The trial court initially ruled in her favor, but the City of Dallas appealed. The appellate court examined whether Bradford's transportation was paid for by the employer or if she was directed to proceed from one place to another under her employment contract, as per Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8309, § 1b. The court concluded that she was merely on her way to work and not yet engaged in her duties, nor was her travel to work covered by employer payment or direction. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding her injuries were not incurred in the course of employment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentCommuting RuleTravel ReimbursementEmployer DirectionPersonal Vehicle UseTexas LawAutomobile AccidentPublic Health NurseAppeal
References
12
Case No. 11-03-00061-CV B
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2004

City of Dallas v. Jim Lowenberg

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's decision in a class action lawsuit filed by Jim Lowenberg et al. Appellees challenged a Dallas City ordinance from 1994, claiming its registration fee was an unconstitutional occupational tax. The trial court denied the City's summary judgment motion and granted appellees a summary judgment of over $1.8 million, including refunds and attorney's fees. The 11th Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that the appellees' claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the challenge to the ordinance was "facial," meaning the limitation period began when the ordinance was passed, not when the fees were paid, making the 1998 lawsuit untimely.

statute of limitationsunconstitutional ordinancefacial challengeclass action lawsuitsummary judgmentTexas appellate lawmunicipal ordinanceoccupational taxlegal feesappellate review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Cox

The City of Dallas appeals from a trial court's judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Coxes following the shooting death of Addison Police Officer Ron Cox by a Dallas Police Officer. The appeal challenges the trial court's imposition of significant discovery sanctions, including monetary penalties and striking Dallas's answer, due to repeated failures to comply with discovery requests, destruction of relevant records, and production of questionable evidence. Dallas also contested the subsequent default judgment on liability, the inclusion of an intervenor, the effect of an amended petition, the denial of automatic sanctions, the granting of a continuance, and the exclusion of evidence regarding Ron Cox's conduct. Additionally, Dallas challenged the jury's damages award for pain and suffering and psychological expenses, and the admission of a ballistic test report. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all thirteen points of error, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decisions regarding sanctions, liability, and evidentiary matters.

Discovery sanctionsPolice misconductExcessive forceCivil rightsWrongful deathTexas Tort Claims ActDefault judgmentAbuse of discretionPsychological recordsEvidence tampering
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prewitt and Sampson v. City of Dallas

The City of Dallas sued Prewitt and Sampson, a law firm and its partner Brenda Prewitt, to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee, Herschel Crawford. Crawford was injured in a vehicle accident, and the City, a self-insuring entity, paid him $3,179.39 in benefits. Prewitt, representing Crawford, settled a claim against the third-party tortfeasor for $3,500 without the City's knowledge. The settlement check was made payable jointly to Crawford and Prewitt. The City alleged conversion of the funds by Prewitt, asserting its right to the "first money" recovered up to the amount of compensation paid. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that Prewitt converted the funds by accepting and refusing to relinquish the City's portion and forfeited any claim to attorney's fees under Article 8307, Section 6a(a) due to her illegal action.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentConversion of FundsSubrogation RightsAttorney's Fees ForfeitureThird-Party SettlementFirst Money RuleAppellate AffirmationTexas Workers' Compensation LawLaw Firm Liability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,296 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