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. M2008-02060-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

The case concerns a plaintiff injured while avoiding a front-end loader operated by a government employee. The plaintiff sued both the governmental entity, Metro, and the employee, Frank Archey, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' findings, determining that the employee's act of intentionally frightening the plaintiff constituted an intentional tort of assault, not mere negligence. Consequently, Metro, the governmental entity, was immune from liability under the GTLA because there was no direct proof of its negligent supervision. The case was remanded for judgment to be entered against the employee, Frank Archey, as he was held personally liable for the intentional assault.

Governmental Tort LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortAssaultNegligenceSovereign ImmunityFront-end LoaderMetropolitan GovernmentEmployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Terrell

This case addresses whether the State of Texas is liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for personal injuries caused by a highway patrol officer's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. James M. Terrell and Security National Insurance Company sued the State after Officer White's patrol car collided with Terrell's vehicle during a radar operation in Runnels County. The District Court granted summary judgment for the State, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, holding that the State is subject to liability if the officer's negligence occurred within the scope of employment and outside an emergency. The Court clarified that while policy-making decisions regarding police protection are immune, negligence in executing those policies can lead to liability under the Act.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental LiabilityPolice NegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationEmergency ExemptionPolicy DecisionsDiscretionary FunctionScope of Employment
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. City of Galveston

Justice Terry Jennings dissents from the denial of en banc consideration, arguing that the panel's decision to not shield municipalities from the State's tort claims creates a state sovereignty exception to governmental immunity without legislative approval. This, he contends, subjects local governmental units to unlimited tort liability and undermines the Texas Legislature's sole authority to waive sovereign immunity, as explicitly defined in the Texas Tort Claims Act. Justice Jennings highlights that the Legislature has precisely outlined the circumstances under which municipalities are liable for governmental functions and that any expansion of this liability should be a legislative, not judicial, prerogative. He also criticizes the majority's misapplication of the *Eagle Pass* precedent.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityTort Claims ActState SovereigntyLegislative PrerogativeJudicial ActivismEn Banc ConsiderationDissenting OpinionTexas LawLocal Government
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erwin v. Rose

This case addresses the liability of a municipality and its agents under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, as well as the liability of an underinsured motorist carrier. Ms. Erwin's parents filed a wrongful death action after their daughter was killed in a high-speed chase involving Deputy Mike Rose of Maury County. The court apportioned fault between Deputy Rose and Tracy Joe Lovell, limiting Maury County's liability to $130,000 and dismissing claims against Deputy Rose. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the underinsured motorist carrier, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., finding that payments from other tort-feasors reduce the carrier's coverage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions on municipal and agent liability and the dismissal of the underinsured motorist claim, but reversed the award of prejudgment interest as it exceeded the statutory liability limit for the municipality. A petition to rehear was subsequently overruled.

Governmental Tort Liability ActUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWrongful DeathHigh-Speed ChasePolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilityDeputy Sheriff LiabilityPrejudgment InterestInsurance Policy LimitsCivil Rights Violations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery v. Mayor of City of Covington

Carl Leander Montgomery, a former police officer for the City of Covington, filed a wrongful discharge suit against the City, its Mayor, and Board of Aldermen. Montgomery alleged retaliatory discharge after he became medically disabled from a work-related injury and sought workers' compensation, subsequently being denied a less strenuous position. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that a retaliatory discharge action is not a claim for workers' compensation benefits under GTLA § 29-20-106. Furthermore, the court determined that retaliatory discharge constitutes an intentional tort, which is not covered by the GTLA's exceptions to governmental immunity for negligent acts.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeGovernmental ImmunityTennessee Governmental Tort Liability ActWorkers' CompensationImmunity from SuitIntentional TortDismissal of ActionAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. E2012-02112-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee

This case addresses whether the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) governs Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) claims against governmental entities and if there is a right to a jury trial for such claims in chancery court. The Court rejected the analysis from Young v. Davis, which had suggested the GTLA applied broadly to statutory claims against governmental entities, overruling it partially. Applying the Cruse v. City of Columbia analysis, the Court held that the THRA is an independent statute that removes governmental immunity and establishes legislative intent to provide a right to a jury trial for THRA claims against governmental entities in chancery court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals' judgment was reversed, and the trial court's transfer order was vacated, remanding the case to chancery court.

Sovereign ImmunityJury Trial RightAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeStatutory InterpretationGovernmental ImmunityTHRAGTLAChancery CourtInterlocutory Appeal
References
68
Case No. C.A. No. 02A01-9803-CV-00069 Shelby Circuit No. 76743-7 T.D.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1998

Roger Brown v. City of Memphis

Roger Brown, a City of Memphis employee, suffered a severe on-the-job leg injury on May 12, 1995, while operating a bulldozer at a sewage treatment plant. He was attempting to free a jammed cable in raw sewage when another employee's action caused the cable to jerk, lacerating his leg and leading to severe complications. The City, not covered by the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act, had an 'on the job injury' (OJI) program, through which Brown received over $150,000 for lost wages and medical bills. Brown sued the City under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), alleging negligence, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the City, dismissing the action because the OJI payments exceeded the GTLA's $130,000 damage limit. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the OJI payments, being a fringe benefit akin to an insurance plan, should be considered advance payments against any tort liability under the GTLA, rather than outright compensation precluding further action, and therefore, the City should be given credit for the payments but not summary judgment.

Governmental Tort LiabilitySovereign ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealOn-the-job Injury ProgramWorkers' Compensation ExemptionMunicipal NegligenceDamages CapAdvance Payments CreditAppellate Court DecisionTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 11,677 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