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

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 7,009 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