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. 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. 04-99-00750-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2000

Dallas County Civil Service Commission and Dallas County v. Betty Jean Warren

This appeal addresses the appropriate award of attorney's fees following a prior remand. Previously, the court reversed a trial court's judgment regarding an unjust dismissal claim but affirmed a due process claim, instructing a remand to award attorney's fees solely for the due process claim. On remand, Appellee Betty Jean Warren sought attorney's fees, initially requesting $86,111.50, which was voluntarily reduced to $62,842.75, along with a 25% enhancement for results achieved. Appellants Dallas County Civil Service Commission and Dallas County challenged the requested amount, asserting it was excessive. After considering the evidence, the trial court awarded $76,579.75 in attorney's fees at the trial level, plus conditional fees for any subsequent appeals. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's exercise of discretion in determining the award, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Attorney's FeesDue Process ClaimUnjust Dismissal ClaimAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductRule 1.04 FactorsContingency FeesRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County Civil Service Commission v. Warren

This appellate opinion addresses an appeal by the Dallas County Civil Service Commission and Dallas County against a judgment in favor of Betty Jean Warren, whose employment termination was upheld by the Commission. The Court of Appeals found two key errors: the Commission erroneously placed the burden of proof on Warren during her hearing, violating her due process rights, and the trial court improperly submitted the "substantial evidence" issue to a jury, which is a question of law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. The case is remanded with instructions for the trial court to award Warren only attorney's fees related to her due process claim and to send the matter back to the Commission for a new hearing where the burden of proof will correctly rest on the County.

Employment LawDue ProcessBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleWrongful TerminationCivil Service CommissionPublic EmployeeAppellate ReviewRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Dallas County

Connie A. Johnson appealed the trial court's judgments regarding her worker's compensation claim against Dallas County. Johnson, injured in 1988, initially settled with the County and also secured an award from the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission for medical expenses. The County later challenged this award, arguing it had already paid medical expenses through its self-funded health insurance plan, thus precluding a double recovery for Johnson. Johnson contended the collateral source rule prevented the County from taking credit for these payments. The trial court sided with the County, awarding Johnson only $1933.22 for out-of-pocket costs and denying pre-judgment interest and appellate attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the collateral source rule was inapplicable as the County was not a tortfeasor and had made payments from its own self-insurance fund.

Workers' CompensationCollateral Source RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPre-judgment InterestAttorney's FeesSelf-InsuranceMedical ExpensesReimbursementTexas Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County v. Holmes

Glen Holmes sued Dallas County for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and fraud. The jury found in favor of Holmes on the wrongful termination claim. Dallas County appealed, contending insufficient evidence to support the wrongful termination finding and errors in refusing requested jury instructions and questions. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of wrongful termination and that there was no abuse of discretion in the submission of the jury charge.

wrongful terminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimsufficiency of evidencecausal connectionjury instructionsjob abandonmentgood faith claimTexas Labor Codeappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1988

Ingram v. Dallas County, Tex.

This case involves claims by Luella Ingram, a 54-year-old black female, against Dallas County, her former employer. Ingram alleged age discrimination under the ADEA, procedural and substantive due process violations, breach of employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivation of liberty interest in her reputation, following her discharge and rehire at a lower pay. The Court granted Ingram's motion for summary judgment on her procedural due process claim, finding she had a property interest in her job and was discharged without notice or a pre-termination hearing. It denied her substantive due process claim and granted the County's motion on the breach of employment contract. The Court denied the County's motion for summary judgment on Ingram's ADEA claim, finding her to be an 'employee' under the act and that she presented a prima facie case with evidence of pretext. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and deprivation of liberty interest were dismissed. Both parties' motions for sanctions were denied. The remaining issues for trial are damages for the procedural due process violation and the age discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationDue ProcessProperty InterestCivil ServiceEmployment ContractSummary JudgmentTexas LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePublic EmployeeWrongful Discharge
References
27
Case No. 05-22-00932-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2024

Dallas County, Texas v. Tim Sutton A/K/A Timothy Sutton A/K/A Timothy L. Sutton A/K/A Timothy Lee Sutton

Dallas County mistakenly paid Tim Sutton an excess of $10,035.23 after a constable's execution sale in October 2016. Sutton claimed he attempted to return the funds, but the County refused. After realizing the mistake, the County repaid the judgment debtor, Rodriguez, in November 2020 and subsequently sued Sutton in December 2020 for money had and received and unjust enrichment. Sutton moved for summary judgment, arguing the County's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The County contended it was exempt from limitations under section 16.061(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court granted Sutton's motion and denied the County's. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the County's claim was a subrogation claim derived from Rodriguez's rights, and thus the County was subject to Sutton's limitations defense, which had expired.

Statute of LimitationsSubrogation LawUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedExecution Sale ProceedsAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureGovernmental ExemptionSummary Judgment AppealMistaken Payment Recovery
References
26
Case No. 05-20-00579-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2021

Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity v. David Daniels, Jodie Campbell, and Kellie McCullar, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Medically-Vulnerable Persons

This case involves an accelerated, interlocutory appeal by Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown challenging a trial court's denial of her plea in abatement. Appellees, a class of medically vulnerable persons detained in the Dallas County Jail, sued Sheriff Brown for injunctive relief regarding conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging violations of the Texas Constitution, public health nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. The Sheriff claimed governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals reviewed the claims, specifically addressing the viability of constitutional and ultra vires claims, and the applicability of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court concluded that appellees failed to plead viable constitutional claims, that the Sheriff's actions were not ultra vires, and that the TTCA does not waive immunity for injunctive relief. The trial court's order was reversed, and the appellees' claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionUltra ViresTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClauseCruel and Unusual PunishmentDeliberate IndifferenceTexas Tort Claims ActInjunctive Relief
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County v. Logan

Roy Logan, a former deputy constable for Dallas County, sued Dallas County under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging he was reprimanded, suspended, and terminated after reporting violations of law by county personnel to the Dallas County Judge and investigators hired by the Dallas County Commissioners Court. Dallas County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign/governmental immunity and arguing that Logan did not report to an 'appropriate law enforcement authority' as defined by the Act. Specifically, Dallas County contended the investigators were not governmental entities and neither they nor the Dallas County Judge could regulate, enforce, investigate, or prosecute the alleged violations. The trial court overruled Dallas County's objections to the evidence and denied its plea to the jurisdiction. On interlocutory appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Dallas County had not preserved arguments regarding Logan's 'good faith belief' about the appropriateness of the authorities for appellate review.

Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic EmployeeLaw Enforcement AuthorityGood Faith BeliefRetaliationEmployment Law
References
24
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 6,803 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