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

Johnson v. Dallas County

Connie A. Johnson appealed the trial court's judgments regarding her worker's compensation claim against Dallas County. Johnson, injured in 1988, initially settled with the County and also secured an award from the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission for medical expenses. The County later challenged this award, arguing it had already paid medical expenses through its self-funded health insurance plan, thus precluding a double recovery for Johnson. Johnson contended the collateral source rule prevented the County from taking credit for these payments. The trial court sided with the County, awarding Johnson only $1933.22 for out-of-pocket costs and denying pre-judgment interest and appellate attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the collateral source rule was inapplicable as the County was not a tortfeasor and had made payments from its own self-insurance fund.

Workers' CompensationCollateral Source RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPre-judgment InterestAttorney's FeesSelf-InsuranceMedical ExpensesReimbursementTexas Law
References
5
Case No. M2005-02719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

Wilson County Board of Education v. Wilson County Education Association and Steve Johnson

An assistant principal, Steve Johnson, was transferred to a teaching position by the Wilson County Board of Education. He, along with the Wilson County Education Association, grieved the transfer under a locally negotiated agreement. After the grievance was denied through internal steps, they sought to compel arbitration in the Chancery Court for Wilson County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that assistant principals are statutorily similar to principals, giving the director of schools unrestrained authority to transfer them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that despite the agreement mentioning "binding arbitration," it also stated that the arbitrator "may recommend" remedies, creating an inconsistency that prevented a "meeting of the minds" on the final resolution procedure, thus rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Education Professional Negotiations ActGrievance ProcedureArbitration AgreementMeeting of the MindsContract InterpretationTeacher TransferAssistant PrincipalStatutory AuthoritySchool Board PowersBinding vs. Advisory Arbitration
References
29
Case No. 05-95-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1996

Collin County v. Johnson, Coy, William Don Watson and Nadine Watson

Collin County appealed a summary judgment concerning its subrogation interest in a personal injury settlement. Nadine Watson's medical expenses were paid by the Collin County Insurance Fund, and her husband, William Watson, signed a subrogation agreement. After Nadine settled her personal injury lawsuit, the amount paid by Collin County was placed in the court registry but subsequently released to Nadine. Collin County sued Coy Johnson (Nadine's attorney) and the Watsons, asserting multiple causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Collin County's motion for summary judgment but reversed the granting of appellees' motion, ruling that Collin County was not required to intervene, was not collaterally estopped, and a fact issue existed regarding equitable subrogation. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

SubrogationSummary JudgmentInterventionCollateral EstoppelAttorney MalpracticeBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceFraudConversionNegligence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Johnson County

This appeal addresses whether a General Sessions Judge in Johnson County, Tennessee, is entitled to an additional statutory salary supplement for exercising jurisdiction over mental health commitments, separate from the supplement already received for juvenile court jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the trial court's decision against the judge, reasoning that mental health jurisdiction was merely derivative of juvenile jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court reversed this judgment. It determined that the plain language of Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-15-5003(c)(l) mandates an additional supplement for mental health commitments because this jurisdiction was obtained 'by operation of law' and requires specific prerequisites, such as the judge being a licensed attorney. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to compensate judges for increased workload and encourage attorneys to serve in these roles, making the additional supplement appropriate.

Judicial salaryGeneral Sessions JudgeMental health commitmentsJuvenile jurisdictionStatutory interpretationOperation of lawSalary supplementJohnson CountyTennesseeAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. M2010-01924-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2012

James Johnson and wife, Elaine Johnson v. The Torrington Company

James Johnson, a heavy equipment operator, suffered severe injuries in a workplace accident involving a custom-made waste container at a Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) transfer station in Giles County. Johnson and his wife sued The Torrington Company, the owner of the container, and Wastequip Manufacturing Company, its fabricator, alleging negligence in design, manufacturing, inspection, and maintenance. Wastequip settled, and a first jury found BFI solely at fault. The trial court, acting as the thirteenth juror, granted a new trial. A second jury found Torrington 90% at fault and Johnson 10% at fault, awarding the plaintiffs $3.5 million, which was reduced to $2,925,000 after a remittitur for Mrs. Johnson's damages. Torrington appealed, challenging the vacating of the first verdict, the second jury's findings, the allocation of fault (specifically the exclusion of BFI due to workers' compensation immunity), and the amount of the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict and the allocation of fault.

Workplace InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation ImmunityJury VerdictNew TrialThirteenth Juror RuleDamages AwardLoss of Consortium
References
23
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. Davidson County Circuit Court No. 97C-55, C.A. No. 01A01-9712-CV-00690
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1999

Mildred Johnson and Gary Johnson v. Charles T. Cantrell and Patricia Cantrell

Mildred and Gary Johnson appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charles T. and Patricia Cantrell. The case originated from an incident where Mildred Johnson, an employee, suffered a mini-stroke following a confrontational interaction with the Cantrells, who were landlords concerned about property removal. The Johnsons sued, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and later attempted to assert a negligence claim on appeal. The trial court found the Cantrells' actions insufficient to establish assault or outrageous conduct for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the threats were not of imminent harm and the conduct, while upsetting, did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary JudgmentAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceAppellate ReviewTort LawCivil ProcedureFactual DisputeImminent HarmOutrageous Conduct
References
24
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 07-11-00091-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2011

RWayne Johnson v. Gerald and Vicki Cornelius

R. Wayne Johnson appealed the trial court's dismissal of his suit against Gerald and Vicki Cornelius. Johnson, a declared vexatious litigant, failed to obtain administrative judge permission before filing suit, leading to the dismissal. Johnson argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to improper venue in Castro County instead of Potter County, and that the prefiling order from Bee County was void. The appellate court rejected Johnson's jurisdictional challenge, distinguishing venue from jurisdiction, and found his arguments regarding the voidness of the prefiling order and constitutional challenges to be without merit. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Vexatious LitigantJurisdictionVenueDue ProcessOpen Courts ProvisionCivil ProcedureAppellate LawTexas CourtsPro Se RepresentationCase Dismissal
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 7,082 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