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
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. M2005-00932-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Amos v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

The case concerns former police and fire department employees of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County who sought to include lump-sum payments for unused vacation days in their pension calculations. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled against the employees, granting summary judgment to Metro, concluding that these payments were not part of "average earnings" as defined by the Metro Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, acknowledging that while lump-sum vacation payments are indeed compensation for personal services, their timing (paid after employment termination) prevented their inclusion in the "average earnings" for pension benefits. The court emphasized that the Metro Code's pension formula is based on a sixty-month calculation, which would be disrupted by including post-termination payments. Furthermore, the absence of a specific provision for vacation leave in pension credit, unlike sick leave, indicated no legislative intent to include such payments in pension calculations.

Pension calculationVacation payLump-sum paymentAverage earningsMetro Code interpretationDeclaratory judgmentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewStatutory constructionPublic employee benefits
References
29
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

Pelham Council of Governing Boards v. City of Mount Vernon

This case addresses a special proceeding initiated by the Pelham Council of Governing Boards, an unincorporated entity comprising the Villages of Pelham and Pelham Manor, the Town of Pelham, and the Pelham Union Free School District. The petitioner sought to annul a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mount Vernon in January 2000, which rezoned a 14.55-acre site for the Sanford Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The core issue was the petitioner's standing to bring the action. The court examined associational standing, noting that while three of the four member municipalities might have individual standing under the Westchester County Administrative Code, the Pelham Union Free School District would not. Ultimately, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate proper representation of its members' views or a necessity for organizational standing in this context, granting the respondents' defense and dismissing the petition for lack of standing.

Organizational StandingAssociational StandingLand UseZoningMunicipal LawCapacity to SueEnvironmental Review (SEQRA)Mount Vernon City CouncilPelham MunicipalitiesSchool District Standing
References
18
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. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Case No. C.A. No. 02A01-9701-CH-00024
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

Eileen Smith v. Shelby Co. Government

Eileen Smith, a social worker, sued Shelby County Government for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a right wrist injury while assisting a patient. The Chancery Court of Shelby County found the injury compensable, awarding Smith 60% permanent vocational disability to her right arm. Shelby County Government appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of a work-related injury and the extent of the disability award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section at Jackson, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence, including reports from Dr. E. B. Wilkerson and lay testimony, supported the finding that the injury arose out of employment. The court also upheld the disability rating, considering Smith's job skills, education, and the impact of her injury on her employment, as well as Dr. Neil Aranov's testimony regarding a work-related psychological adjustment disorder.

Workers' CompensationVocational DisabilityPermanent DisabilityWrist InjurySocial WorkerOrthopedic SurgeryPsychological ConditionMedical ImprovementScope of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of G.R.M.

This appeal addresses a jurisdictional dispute concerning the modification of a parent-child relationship order. Appellant Sam J.M. challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the 393rd District Court of Denton County, arguing that the 158th District Court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the original decree of divorce. Appellee Leticia H. A. contended that the transfer of the case to the 393rd District Court for docket equalization was permissible under the Texas Government Code. The court analyzed the apparent conflict between the exclusive transfer provisions of the Texas Family Code and the docket equalization provisions of the Texas Government Code. Applying statutory construction principles, the court found that the Government Code's section on docket equalization, enacted later and reflecting a clear legislative intent to balance judicial burdens, prevails over the Family Code's transfer restrictions in this specific context. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the 393rd District Court had properly acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

Subject Matter JurisdictionDocket EqualizationParent-Child RelationshipStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodeExclusive JurisdictionIntra-county TransferAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 04-14-00558-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2019

Edna A. Martinez v. State Office of Risk Management

This dissenting opinion addresses the denial of an en banc reconsideration motion for a case involving Edna A. Martinez and the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). The central dispute revolves around whether Martinez's failure to obtain prior written authorization for working from home, as required by Texas Government Code sections 658.010 and 659.018, affects the compensability of her injury under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act. The dissent argues against the court's prior finding that the Government Code provisions control, contending that they do not conflict with nor supersede Labor Code section 401.011(12), which defines 'course and scope of employment' to include working from 'other locations.' Furthermore, the dissenting justice asserts that the Government Code statutes are more general, while the Labor Code provision is more specific to worker's compensation. The dissent also believes there is a disputed fact question regarding Martinez's authority to work from home, citing evidence from previous proceedings. For these reasons, the dissenting justice would grant the motion for rehearing en banc and withdraw the previous panel opinion.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationGovernment CodeLabor CodeSummary JudgmentEn Banc ReconsiderationDissenting OpinionTexas LawState Employee
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,095 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