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

Hastings v. South Central Human Resource Agency

This is an appeal regarding the termination of two employees, Hart Hastings and Teri Laster, by the South Central Human Resource Agency (SCHRA). The trial court found SCHRA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in summarily discharging the plaintiffs without proper notice and hearing, ordering their reinstatement with back pay. SCHRA appealed, arguing it is not a state agency, the Grievance Committee hearing did not violate the "Sunshine Law" (Open Meetings Act), and the trial court erred in interpreting its personnel policies regarding misconduct. The appellate court determined SCHRA is a state agency, but reversed the trial court's finding that the Grievance Committee violated the Sunshine Law, stating the committee was not a "governing body." Furthermore, the appellate court found the Grievance Committee did not act fraudulently, illegally, or arbitrarily in upholding the terminations, as "falsification of records" and "improper program management" could be construed as misconduct justifying immediate dismissal under SCHRA's policies.

Government agency statusEmployee terminationDue processPersonnel policiesAdministrative lawOpen meetings actSunshine lawJudicial reviewMisconductFalsification of records
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. 13-10-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Department of Aging and Disability Services, a Texas State Agency v. Deborah K. Powell

The Department of Aging and Disability Services appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in Deborah K. Powell's workers' compensation retaliation case. Powell, a former food-service worker, alleged she was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after an on-the-job injury. The Department argued that its sovereign immunity had not been clearly and unambiguously waived, citing Texas Government Code Ann. § 311.034. The appellate court reviewed the plea to the jurisdiction de novo and relied on the Texas Supreme Court's precedent in Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, which held that the State Applications Act (SAA) contained a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims. The court found that legislative intent to waive immunity for workers' compensation retaliation claims remained clear and unambiguous despite the later enactment of § 311.034. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that the Department, as a state agency, is not immune from claims of workers' compensation retaliation.

Sovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionWorkers' compensation retaliationState Applications ActGovernmental immunity waiverLegislative intentAppellate reviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory appeal
References
8
Case No. NO. 03-18-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

John Hatchett, Sandra Hatchett, and JPH Capital LLP v. West Travis County Public Utility Agency

John and Sandra Hatchett and JPH Capital LLP (collectively, the Hatchetts) appealed the trial court’s order granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the West Travis County Public Utility Agency (PUA). The PUA contended that the Hatchetts lacked standing and were immune from suit. The Hatchetts sought declarations to invalidate the PUA’s policies limiting density and impervious coverage on their property and to grant them vested-rights protection under Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Hatchetts’ UDJA claims as ultra vires but reversed and remanded the dismissal of their Chapter 245 vested-rights claim, finding the PUA's immunity was waived and the 'utility connections' exception did not apply.

Vested RightsChapter 245 LGCPlea to JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimPublic Utility AgencyWater ServiceRegulatory AuthorityStanding
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

Shelton Insurance Agency v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal by Shelton Insurance Agency and John M. Roberts against St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company regarding the alleged mishandling of an insurance claim. Shelton Agency initially sued St. Paul for violations of the DTPA, Texas Insurance Code, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after St. Paul denied coverage to its customer, Frio Drilling Company. A jury found in favor of Shelton Agency, awarding actual and exemplary damages, but the trial court granted St. Paul's motion for judgment n.o.v. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the DTPA, insurance code, breach of good faith, and punitive damages claims. However, it reversed and rendered the judgment on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Shelton Agency was entitled to recover $34,000 for premiums it wrote off.

Insurance LawAgency LiabilityBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingDTPATexas Insurance CodeDenial of CoverageInsurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesJudgment N.O.V.
References
30
Case No. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,799 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