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. 03-03-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson and George Denton v. Texas Workforce Commission and Employees Retirement System of Texas

This case, heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Appellants, former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission, claimed they were terminated due to age and that the Employees Retirement System of Texas misinterpreted a government code section regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the Retirement System's interpretation of former government code section 814.1041(b) was correct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees or excluding evidence.

Age discriminationSummary judgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetirement benefitsGovernment code interpretationStatutory constructionLegislative intentDisparate impactPretext methodPrima facie case
References
28
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. 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. 03-03-00131-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Cantu v. Texas Workforce Commission

This case addresses an appeal by former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission (Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson, and George Denton) who alleged age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act against the Workforce Commission and the Employees Retirement System. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Appellants challenged their terminations due to a privatization plan and the Retirement System's interpretation of an early retirement program (Government Code § 814.1041). The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court further held that the Retirement System's interpretation of Government Code § 814.1041(b) was correct, supported by both plain language and legislative intent, and found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees or the exclusion of evidence.

Age DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentPrivatization PlanEarly Retirement ProgramGovernment Code Section 814.1041Prima Facie CasePretext Method of ProofDisparate ImpactAttorney's Fees
References
29
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. State

Judge Miller's concurring opinion addresses the statutory interpretation of juror excuses in Texas, specifically concerning economic reasons. The opinion highlights a conflict between Section 62.110 of the Texas Government Code, which generally prohibits economic excuses without party approval, and Article 35.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks such a prohibition for criminal trials. Judge Miller argues that Article 35.03, as the more particularized code, should govern criminal proceedings regarding jury selection and excuses, emphasizing that the legislature's intent was not to extend the economic excuse prohibition to criminal trials. The opinion critiques prior caselaw that applied Section 62.110 in criminal settings, asserting that Article 35.03 alone controls the issue at bar.

Judicial ExcuseJuror SelectionEconomic ReasonsTexas Government CodeCode of Criminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationConflict of LawsLegislative IntentCriminal TrialsJury Duty
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,495 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