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. 05-17-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Petrina L. Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office

Petrina Thompson, a former employee of the City of Dallas’s City Attorney’s Office, appealed the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to her former employer and dismissing her employment discrimination claims with prejudice. Thompson contended the trial court erred by denying her motions for new trial, reinstatement, and to modify the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Thompson failed to establish a meritorious defense against the argument that the Dallas City Attorney's Office was a non-jural entity lacking capacity to be sued. Additionally, her post-judgment motions did not satisfy all elements of the Craddock test for a new trial, particularly the lack of delay or injury to the appellee.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestLack of Capacity to SueMisnomerAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsNon-Jural Entity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. RQ-0006-GA
Regular Panel Decision

Opinion No.

The opinion from the Texas Attorney General addresses whether the Howard County Commissioners Court can utilize filing fees from the county law library fund (Local Government Code §323.023) to finance online legal research services. Specifically, it evaluates a proposal from the Howard County Bar Association to provide Westlaw access to the general public, jail inmates, judges, and public and private attorneys. A primary concern was the potential for impermissible subsidization of private attorneys and a violation of Article III, Section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the unconstitutional grant of public funds for private purposes. The Attorney General concluded that the relevant statute permits such expenditures for the law library and judges, and any incidental benefit to private attorneys does not render the expenditure unconstitutional, provided there is a predominant public purpose and adequate public control. Ultimately, the decision rests with the commissioners court's discretion to determine if the expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose and is adequately controlled.

Legal Research ServicesCounty Law Library FundPublic Funds ExpenditureConstitutional LimitationsTexas Local Government CodeHoward County Commissioners CourtAttorney General OpinionPublic Purpose DoctrineIncidental Private BenefitContract Law
References
23
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. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Texas Department of State Health Services

The Attorney General appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of State Health Services regarding a Public Information Act (PIA) dispute. The Department sought to withhold information from an Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation into employee misconduct, asserting confidentiality under Government Code section 531.1021(g). The Attorney General contended that this statutory confidentiality exception only applies to OIG audits or investigations related to Medicaid or other health and human services fraud, abuse, or overcharges. The appellate court, reversing the lower court's decision, agreed with the Attorney General's narrower interpretation. Consequently, the court held that the OIG's confidentiality under section 531.1021(g) is limited to audits and investigations concerning fraud, waste, and abuse within the provision and delivery of health and human services.

Public Information ActGovernment CodeConfidentiality ExceptionOffice of Inspector General (OIG)Employee MisconductStatutory ConstructionMedicaid FraudHealth and Human ServicesDeclaratory Action AppealSummary Judgment
References
11
Case No. 13-07-165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of Texas

The case involves Juan Angel Guerra, District Attorney of Willacy County, seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Migdalia Lopez for appointing Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate Guerra's alleged misconduct. Guerra argued the judge abused her discretion by not following removal procedures under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code, appointing an attorney pro tem without his consent, and not providing notice or a hearing. The court overruled most issues but conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, particularly concerning allegations of voter fraud in an election where Garza was Guerra's opponent. The court also denied motions for contempt and sanctions.

MandamusAttorney Pro TemJudicial DiscretionConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDue ProcessOfficial MisconductVoter FraudDisqualification of ProsecutorTexas Law
References
89
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2017

Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguez

Laura G. Rodriguez sued her former employer, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG), for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Whistleblower Act. A jury found in Rodriguez's favor, awarding her actual damages and attorney's fees. The OAG appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove her whistleblower report was the 'but for' cause of her termination and that she failed to mitigate damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence, including negative attitudes from decision-makers, disparate treatment of similarly-situated employees, and false stated reasons for termination, to support the jury's finding of causation. The court also concluded the OAG failed to meet its burden in proving Rodriguez did not mitigate her damages regarding the front-pay award.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawCausationMitigation of DamagesFront PayBack PayTexas Government CodeInsurance Fraud AllegationEmployee Termination
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 7,681 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