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. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. 03-08-00288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Texas Society of Professional Engineers v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and Cathy Hendricks, Executive Director

The Texas Society of Professional Engineers appealed the trial court's partial grant of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (TBAE) and its Executive Director. The Society sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the TBAE from initiating enforcement proceedings against licensed engineers for alleged violations of the Architecture Practice Act, asserting engineers are exempt and TBAE lacks jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea in part, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over most claims except those challenging TBAE rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, concluding the Society lacked associational standing to pursue the broad relief requested under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. This was because such claims required a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of individual engineers' conduct, not pure issues of law.

JurisdictionAssociational StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional LicensingArchitectureEngineeringAdministrative LawRegulatory Authority
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cowan v. Treetop Enterprises, Inc.

The core issue is whether unit managers at Treetop's Waffle House restaurants qualify as "bona fide executive employees" exempt from FLSA overtime pay. Plaintiffs argue their primary duty involves cooking and non-managerial tasks, not supervision, despite their job title. The court agreed, finding that managerial duties were significantly shared with district managers and that training focused on being a grill operator. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding Treetop and William Ezell's liability for FLSA violations. However, James Shaub was dismissed as a defendant due to insufficient ownership interest, and the defendants' good faith defense was partially upheld, limiting damages to a two-year period and precluding liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime PayExecutive ExemptionPrimary DutyUnit ManagersWaffle HouseRestaurant IndustrySummary JudgmentGood Faith Defense
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kastor v. Sam's Wholesale Club

Plaintiff William A. Kastor sued Sam’s Wholesale Club for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kastor, a bakery department manager, argued he was not exempt from overtime requirements as he spent most of his time on non-managerial tasks. Sam's contended that Kastor was an executive or administrative employee, thus exempt under FLSA regulations. The court applied the FLSA 'short test' for executive exemption, finding Kastor's primary duty was management of the bakery department, despite his claims of time spent on non-managerial duties. The court considered the importance of his managerial tasks, his exercise of discretion, and his supervision of other employees. The court granted Sam’s Wholesale Club’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice, concluding that Kastor was an exempt executive employee.

overtime compensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAexecutive exemptionadministrative exemptionsummary judgmentprimary dutymanagementbakery departmentwage and hour
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. National Autotech, Inc.

Jim Roberts, the plaintiff, sued his former employer, National Autotech, claiming entitlement to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). National Autotech argued that Roberts was an exempt executive and/or administrative employee. Roberts was hired as a Service Writer or Manager Trainee, then quickly promoted to Store Manager and later Group Supervisor, before returning to Store Manager. The court examined his duties under the FLSA's "short test" for executive and administrative exemptions. The court found Roberts was an exempt executive employee during his time as Store Manager or Group Supervisor due to his primary duty being management, despite spending significant time on non-managerial tasks. However, during his initial five weeks as a Manager Trainee or Service Writer, he was deemed non-exempt. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionManager TraineeStore ManagerGroup SupervisorPrimary Duty TestSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rainey v. McWane, Inc.

Plaintiffs Lonzo Rainey, Jr. and a collective class of production supervisors sued Defendant McWane, Inc. d/b/a Tyler Pipe for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime pay. Tyler Pipe moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs were correctly classified as executive employees exempt from overtime requirements. The court analyzed whether the plaintiffs' "primary duty" was management and if their recommendations regarding employee status were given "particular weight," both key criteria for executive exemption under FLSA regulations. The court found that plaintiffs' responsibilities, including supervising, training, directing work, initiating discipline, and ensuring safety, constituted primary management duties. Additionally, their weekly evaluations of new hires and initiation of disciplinary actions were given particular weight by HR. Consequently, the court granted Tyler Pipe's motion for summary judgment, concluding that all factors for the executive exemption were satisfied, and no genuine issue of material fact remained.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionPrimary DutyManagement ResponsibilitiesEmployee ClassificationCollective Class ActionProduction SupervisorsHuman Resources
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodgson v. BARGE, WAGGONER AND SUMNER, INCORPORATED

This action was brought to enjoin Barge, Waggoner and Sumner, Incorporated from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime compensation. The central issue was whether ten of the defendant's employees qualified for professional or executive exemptions under the Act. The court determined that the employees, being paid hourly and lacking a predetermined salary, did not meet the stringent exemption requirements. Consequently, the court instructed the plaintiff's attorney to calculate the overtime compensation due to these employees. However, due to the defendant's demonstrated good faith and absence of willful violation, the court declined to impose liquidated damages or grant a permanent injunction.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayEmployee ExemptionsSalary BasisExecutive EmployeeProfessional EmployeeAdministrative EmployeeHourly WagesInjunction DenialLiquidated Damages
References
12
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,455 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