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

EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist.

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District

Plaintiff Robert Gonzales brought an employment discrimination suit against the Galveston Independent School District (GISD) and several individual defendants, alleging violations of his property and liberty interests, Equal Protection rights, and the Texas Whistleblower statute. Gonzales claimed he was retaliated against for reporting official misconduct and for complaining about GISD's hiring practices after being denied a promotion. Presiding Judge Kent of the District Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, dismissing them with prejudice. The court found that Gonzales failed to establish a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, and that his Equal Protection and Free Speech claims lacked sufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motivation for his termination. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining state-law claims to the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law ClaimsRemandFree SpeechDue ProcessLiberty InterestProperty InterestWhistleblower
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rorie v. City of Galveston

A longshoreman, C. V. Rorie, Jr., sued the shipowner (Avenue Shipping Co., Ltd., and Trinder, Anderson & Co., Ltd.) and the City of Galveston for personal injuries sustained while working on the S. S. Armagh. His injuries resulted from the negligence of a hoist operator, Frank McPeters, employed by the City. The central legal question was whether McPeters was a 'borrowed servant' of Rorie's employer, Strachan Shipping Company, a stevedoring company. The Texas Supreme Court, interpreting a tariff circular, held that McPeters was, as a matter of law, the borrowed servant of Strachan due to an express agreement in the tariff. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, which had ruled that Rorie take nothing and that the shipowner recover defense costs from Strachan based on a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike service.

Personal InjuryLongshoremanBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceStevedoringIndemnityWorkers' Compensation CarrierFederal Maritime CommissionTariff InterpretationShipping Act
References
24
Case No. 217 S.W.3d 466
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

City of Galveston v. State

The State of Texas sued the City of Galveston for damages to a state highway caused by a ruptured city water line. The City asserted governmental immunity, which the trial court granted. The court of appeals reversed, holding that cities have no immunity from suit by the State. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment dismissing the State's claim. The Court held that the Legislature has not authorized the State to sue its cities for money damages, and the judiciary should not fill that gap, emphasizing that governmental immunity is a matter primarily for the Legislature to waive.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityIntergovernmental DisputesCity LiabilityState AuthorityLegislative WaiverJudicial ReviewTexas LawTort ClaimsHome-Rule Cities
References
60
Case No. 01-03-00557-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2004

State v. the City of Galveston

The State of Texas sued the City of Galveston for negligence after a municipal waterline ruptured under a state highway, causing damage the State had to repair. The City asserted governmental immunity from the negligence claim, and the trial court granted its plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case. On appeal, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals addressed whether a municipality enjoys governmental immunity from the State's lawsuit for negligence and actual damages. The court concluded that a municipality does not possess such immunity against the State, reasoning that municipal immunity derives from the State's own sovereignty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipal ImmunitySovereign ImmunityNegligenceActual DamagesPlea to JurisdictionHome-Rule CityPolitical SubdivisionAppellate ReviewState Lawsuit
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miranda v. City of Galveston

This case involves a hearing following a remand from the Court of Appeals regarding a suit brought by libellants and Texas Employers’ Insurance Association against the City of Galveston for bodily injuries and reimbursement under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The original decree found the City liable, and this liability was affirmed on appeal. The present hearing specifically addresses the claim by Texas Employers’ for attorneys’ fees, which is contested by the City and the libellants. The court, applying principles of equity and statutory provisions, determines that Texas Employers’ is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee of $10,000, in addition to the stipulated compensation and interest of $51,130.14.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActAttorney's FeesReimbursementSubrogationEquitable AdjustmentThird-Party LiabilityRemandSettlementIndemnity AgreementMaritime Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1952

City of Galveston v. Hill

Plaintiffs Etheridge Hill and Leopold Gonzales sued the City of Galveston and Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for injuries sustained from inhaling poisonous fumes while working for Southern Stevedoring Company. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by the City in fumigating grain. The City filed a cross-action against the insurance carrier. A jury found the City not negligent but the Stevedoring Company negligent, leading to a trial court judgment denying relief to the plaintiffs and the insurance carrier. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision due to perceived prejudice from the City's cross-action. This court, however, reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that no reversible error was demonstrated, especially as the issue of insurance was initially introduced by the plaintiffs' own pleadings.

Workers' CompensationLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ActionNegligenceFumigation InjuryEmployer LiabilityInsurance CoverageCross-ClaimsJury FindingsTrial Court Affirmation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. City of Galveston

Etheridge Hill and Leopold Gonzales, longshoremen, sued the City of Galveston for personal injuries sustained from fumigated grain, alleging negligence. Their employer's insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, joined seeking recoupment of compensation benefits. The City filed a cross-action against the insurer for contribution, claiming the insurer was the alter ego of the negligent employer. The trial court allowed this. The jury found the City not negligent but the employer negligent. On appeal, the court reversed, holding the cross-action against the compensation carrier was improper and prejudicial, as the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act limits employer liability and the insurer's right to recoupment is a contract right, not subject to employer's tort liability for contribution.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityContribution ClaimSubrogationCompensation InsuranceJury PrejudiceCross-ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Galveston Independent School District

Plaintiffs Patricia Williams and Terri Watkins, African-American employees of the Galveston Independent School District (GISD), filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They claimed that GISD paid them less than two white coworkers, E.J. Garcia and Paul McLarty, despite having substantially similar job responsibilities. Williams also included a retaliation claim, which Watkins later joined. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory compensation, concluding that their positions were not substantially similar to those of their white colleagues, even though they were in the same pay grade. Furthermore, the Court accepted GISD's explanations for salary disparities, which cited additional responsibilities assumed by the white employees and an effort to align salaries with market rates based on a Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) Salary Study, as legitimate and nondiscriminatory. Consequently, the Court granted GISD's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, including Watkins's retaliation claim, which she conceded should be dismissed.

DiscriminationEmployment LawSalary EquitySummary JudgmentSection 1981Burden-ShiftingPretextTexasSchool AdministrationRacial Discrimination
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 79 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