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. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. 05-14-00759-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

Dallas Independent School District and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education v. Adrian Peters

This appeal concerns the termination of Assistant Principal Adrian Peters' contract by the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). An independent hearing examiner and the Commissioner of Education found good cause for termination, citing inappropriate physical and verbal abuse of a pregnant student. The district court, however, reversed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the DISD School Board violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by voting to terminate Mr. Peters' contract in a closed session, and conditionally awarded attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, upholding the termination, finding substantial evidence for good cause, and determining that Mr. Peters lacked standing to assert the Open Meetings Act violation as he suffered no generalized injury and the procedural error did not lead to an erroneous decision. Consequently, the conditional award of attorney's fees was also reversed.

Education CodeTexasSchool DistrictOpen Meetings ActContract TerminationTeacher DisciplinePhysical ForceStudent RestraintDue ProcessJudicial Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Waxahachie Independent School District

Tim Johnson and Ed White, former maintenance coordinators for Waxahachie Independent School District (WISD), sued WISD for unlawful termination, alleging retaliation for filing an employment grievance under Texas Government Code section 617.005. The trial court granted summary judgment to WISD, prompting an appeal. Appellants urged the appellate court to recognize a new cause of action for public employees terminated in retaliation for filing grievances, either as an implied statutory cause of action or a new judicial exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that section 617.005 does not create an implied statutory cause of action and declining to expand common-law exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at-willRetaliatory dischargePublic employeeGrievanceTexas Government CodeImplied cause of actionJudicial exceptionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewStatutory interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antwine v. Dallas Independent School District

The independent executrix of Elmer Lee Antwine's estate appealed a summary judgment granted to the Dallas Independent School District in a worker's compensation case. The executrix contended that the school district should be estopped from asserting that an issue existed as to the total and permanent nature of Antwine's disability and that issues of material fact existed. The executrix also sought an award of statutory attorney fees. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that unaccrued worker’s compensation benefits terminate with the death of an injured employee when the injury is general and the claim has not been reduced to final judgment. The court also found no basis for the executrix's claims of estoppel or attorney's fees, emphasizing that the statutory scheme dictates the terms of compensation.

Summary JudgmentWorker's Compensation BenefitsEmployee DeathGeneral InjuryLump Sum PaymentEstoppel ClaimAttorney's FeesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Cooper (In Re Cooper)

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion by The Cadle Company, an individual creditor, seeking authorization to prosecute the Chapter 7 estate's causes of action, specifically a Section 542 turnover action and state law fraud claims. The motion was opposed by the debtors, Gary R. and Junanne M. Cooper, and conditionally by the Chapter 7 Trustee. The court analyzes whether an individual creditor in a Chapter 7 case can be granted independent or derivative standing to pursue estate causes of action, distinguishing between Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 contexts. The court concludes there is no textual basis in the Bankruptcy Code for such standing in a Chapter 7 case, noting the unique role of the Chapter 7 trustee as an independent fiduciary without the conflicts of interest often present in Chapter 11. Even if such power existed, the court finds Cadle did not present a compelling argument, as the Trustee had exercised business judgment in attempting to settle the claims. The court ultimately DENIES Cadle's Standing Motion, stating that while Cadle can pursue its independent Section 727(d) action, it cannot usurp the Trustee's role.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyDerivative StandingCreditor StandingTrustee AuthorityEstate Causes of ActionAvoidance ActionsBankruptcy Code InterpretationEquitable PowersJudicial DiscretionMotion Denied
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin Independent School District v. Rountree

Plaintiff-Appellee Leila Rountree, a 64-year-old custodian, secured a judgment for total and permanent benefits against Defendant-Appellant Austin Independent School District, a self-insurer, in a workers' compensation case. The jury found that her left leg injury from an October 1975 fall, combined with a previous loss of her right eye, caused total and permanent incapacity. The School District appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury's findings regarding permanent loss of leg use and total incapacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was ample evidence to support the jury's findings and that they were not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

Workers' CompensationLeg InjuryEye LossTotal IncapacityPermanent IncapacitySelf-Insured EmployerJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDegenerative ArthritisMedical Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Dallas Independent School District

Stephen Wilson, a former teacher for Dallas Independent School District (DISD), appealed the trial court's judgment which granted DISD’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, dismissing Wilson’s Whistleblower Act cause of action. Wilson alleged he was coerced by assistant principals into illegally changing a student athlete's grade to maintain the student’s eligibility for extracurricular activities, a violation of the 'no pass, no play' rule and other statutes. He reported these alleged violations to school board members, an area superintendent, DISD’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the District Attorney’s office, and the University Interscholastic League. Following his reports, Wilson claims his class was eliminated, he was reprimanded, received a negative performance evaluation, and was denied interviews at other DISD schools, leading to a lower-paying position in another district. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Wilson failed to report a violation of law as defined by the Whistleblower Act because his reports did not assert the student actually participated in extracurricular activities while ineligible, and his arguments regarding other statutes were not properly preserved for appeal in the trial court.

Whistleblower Protection ActGovernmental ImmunityPublic EmployeeGrade TamperingExtracurricular EligibilityNo Pass No Play RuleTexas Education CodeTexas Penal CodeSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 8,401 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