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. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 03-18-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Texas Department of Transportation v. Albert Lara, Jr.

Albert Lara, Jr. sued the Texas Department of Transportation (Department) for employment termination after taking extended leave to recover from surgery, alleging violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation. The Department filed a combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Court affirmed the district court's denial regarding the discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning Lara's qualification for accommodation and the Department's alleged undue hardship. However, the Court reversed the district court's denial of the plea concerning Lara's retaliation claim, concluding that Lara failed to establish a causal connection between any protected activity and his termination, thus failing to overcome the Department's immunity.

Employment LawDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Undue Hardship DefenseSummary Judgment ReviewPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureCausation Element
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Logos, L.P. sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) after losing a contract for highway logo signs to Media Choice. Texas Logos alleged TxDOT exceeded its statutory authority by violating procurement statutes, including instances of fraud and conflicts of interest, and sought declarations under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) to void the contract and compel a contested-case proceeding for its protest. Texas Logos also challenged TxDOT's administrative protest rules under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court granted TxDOT's plea, dismissing Texas Logos's claims against TxDOT. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that sovereign immunity barred Texas Logos's UDJA claims as they sought to invalidate an existing contract and control state action, which falls outside the scope of merely construing statutory authority. The court also affirmed the dismissal of APA claims regarding the protest rules, deeming them an abstract issue.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActProcurement LawCompetitive BiddingStatutory AuthorityUltra ViresContract DisputeGovernment Contracts
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. 03-09-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation// Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White v. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) amended its crash report form, removing a space for driver telephone numbers. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White (Plaintiffs) sued TxDOT under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), arguing that TxDOT failed to comply with proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their APA claim, enjoining TxDOT, but dismissed the UDJA claim and denied attorney's fees. On appeal, the court vacated the trial court's APA injunction and dismissed that part of the cause as moot, as TxDOT had subsequently completed the required rulemaking process. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim was deemed moot due to redundancy with the APA claim, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion as the UDJA claim did not substantially broaden the action already provided by the APA.

Administrative Procedure ActUniform Declaratory Judgments ActMootnessAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefRulemaking ProceduresCrash Report FormTexas Department of TransportationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Westbury v. Department of Transportation

The Village of Westbury initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Department of Transportation (DOT) for alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Village sought to annul a negative declaration issued by DOT for the reconstruction of an interchange and a proposed widening of the Northern State Parkway, arguing that the projects' cumulative environmental effects required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, annulling the negative declaration and remitting the case to DOT. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that DOT erred by not considering the combined environmental effects of the interchange reconstruction and the parkway widening, as these were interdependent projects under SEQRA regulations. The Court also held that DOT must apply the more protective Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regulations and that the Village's proceeding was timely because DOT failed to provide proper notice of the negative declaration.

Environmental LawSEQRACPLR Article 78Negative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementProject SegmentationCumulative ImpactsNotice RequirementsStatute of LimitationsHighway Construction
References
7
Case No. 01-17-00919-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2018

Texas Department of Transportation v. James Ricky Tarver

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment in a case brought by James "Ricky" Tarver. Tarver alleged TxDOT negligently failed to maintain a streetlight, causing his vehicle to collide with a dirt embankment and resulting in injuries. TxDOT argued that Tarver failed to provide timely pre-suit notice as required by the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and that TxDOT lacked actual notice of the claim. Tarver countered that a DPS officer's crash report, which noted a burned-out streetlight, constituted actual notice to TxDOT. However, the appellate court ruled that notice to one governmental unit, such as the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), cannot be imputed as actual notice to another separate governmental unit, like TxDOT, under the TTCA unless an agency relationship with a duty to report alleged fault is established. Consequently, the court found that Tarver failed to satisfy the jurisdictional notice requirements for waiving sovereign immunity. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and Tarver's claim against TxDOT was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActActual NoticePre-suit NoticeJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentNegligenceStreetlight Maintenance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2007

Evans v. Texas Department of Transportation

Diana L. Evans sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) alleging retaliation and employment discrimination based on race, gender, age, and disability under Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Evans, a 57-year-old white female office manager, was terminated for mishandling confidential beneficiary information and inappropriately contacting a contractor about her daughter's wages. TxDOT moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination. The court found Evans did not present sufficient evidence of similarly situated employees treated more favorably for race or gender discrimination, nor did she prove pretext for age discrimination. Additionally, Evans failed to establish she was regarded as disabled or that a causal connection existed for her retaliation claim. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of TxDOT on all claims.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIADEAADAPretextCausationWorkplace MisconductConfidential Information
References
215
Case No. 08-17-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2019

Texas Department of Transportation v. Genaro Flores

Genaro Flores sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for age discrimination, and a jury ruled in his favor. TxDOT appealed, contesting the trial court's jurisdiction and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals found legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of age discrimination as a motivating factor and that TxDOT's stated reasons for termination were pretextual. The court also upheld the trial court's jury instructions and exclusion of evidence. However, the Court sustained TxDOT's argument against the right to execution, modifying the judgment to remove that language, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Age DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationSovereign ImmunitySufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsReinstatement RemedyCompensatory DamagesCourt of AppealsTexas Law
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 6,357 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