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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 03-18-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

Leander Independent School District v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Leander Independent School District (LISD) appealed a district court's judgment compelling the disclosure of its "Complaints Document" to a news reporter under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). LISD argued the document was protected by exceptions including deliberative process, work product, constitutional and common law privacy, and litigation anticipation. The appellate court, reviewing de novo, determined the document contained purely factual information, not protected by deliberative process or work product privileges. It also found LISD failed to establish constitutional or common law privacy rights applied, or that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the requirement for LISD to release the information.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestGovernment TransparencyDeliberative Process PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeConstitutional PrivacyCommon Law PrivacyLitigation AnticipationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
69
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Dallas Independent School District

Stephen Wilson, a former teacher for Dallas Independent School District (DISD), appealed the trial court's judgment which granted DISD’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, dismissing Wilson’s Whistleblower Act cause of action. Wilson alleged he was coerced by assistant principals into illegally changing a student athlete's grade to maintain the student’s eligibility for extracurricular activities, a violation of the 'no pass, no play' rule and other statutes. He reported these alleged violations to school board members, an area superintendent, DISD’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the District Attorney’s office, and the University Interscholastic League. Following his reports, Wilson claims his class was eliminated, he was reprimanded, received a negative performance evaluation, and was denied interviews at other DISD schools, leading to a lower-paying position in another district. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Wilson failed to report a violation of law as defined by the Whistleblower Act because his reports did not assert the student actually participated in extracurricular activities while ineligible, and his arguments regarding other statutes were not properly preserved for appeal in the trial court.

Whistleblower Protection ActGovernmental ImmunityPublic EmployeeGrade TamperingExtracurricular EligibilityNo Pass No Play RuleTexas Education CodeTexas Penal CodeSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,404 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