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. 01-24-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Li Li v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company

Justice Gunn's concurring opinion argues that trial courts should never issue 'pretext instructions' to juries in employment litigation. He contends that such instructions improperly sway jury decisions by highlighting one side's testimony and suggesting inferences, thereby placing a 'judicial thumb on the scale.' Gunn traces Texas's historical ban on judicial commenting on the weight of evidence, codified in Rule of Civil Procedure 277, asserting that pretext instructions violate this principle through 'tilting,' 'nudging,' and creating 'surplusage.' He notes the division among federal circuits and Texas appellate courts on this issue, advocating for a clear prohibition to ensure a fair and level playing field where lawyers, not judges, guide the jury's interpretation of evidence.

Jury InstructionsPretextJudicial CommentingWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureEmployment LitigationTrial PracticeEvidence LawJury Role
References
29
Case No. 03-08-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2008

PODER, Govalle/Johnston Terrace Neighborhood Planning Team, Old West Austin Neighborhood Association and Fix Austin v. City of Austin Mayor of Austin, the Honorable Will Wynn Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Mike Martinez Council Member Jennifer Kim Council Member Lee Leffingwell Council Member Brewster McCracken Council Member Sheryl Cole

Appellants, including PODER and neighborhood planning teams, challenged the City of Austin's decision to relocate its animal shelter. They contended that the City violated Article X of the Austin City Charter by not including the project in its comprehensive plan and that the city council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) regarding its March 8, 2007 meeting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the animal shelter relocation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan, and that the city council's actions regarding budget allocations were properly noticed under TOMA. Therefore, no violation of the city charter or TOMA occurred.

Austin City CharterTexas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Summary JudgmentAnimal Shelter RelocationComprehensive PlanningNeighborhood PlanningZoning RegulationsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewLand Use Policy
References
19
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Eldridge

The defendant appealed a conviction for attempted second degree murder. The appeal presented three main issues: the state's failure to preserve a knife, erroneous jury instructions on attempted second degree murder, and the participation of special prosecutors who simultaneously represented the victim in a related civil lawsuit. The court found no violation regarding the missing knife under Brady v. Maryland or Arizona v. Youngblood, and the jury instructions were deemed sufficient. However, the court concluded that the involvement of special prosecutors with a direct financial interest in the parallel civil case violated the defendant's due process rights under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. This conflict of interest was deemed plain error, affecting the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree MurderSpecial ProsecutorsDue Process ViolationConflict of InterestExculpatory EvidenceJury InstructionsCriminal AppealRemand for New TrialPlain Error
References
33
Case No. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commer v. District Council 37, Local 375

Plaintiff Roy Commer filed an action against Civil Service Technical Guild, Local 375, and District Council 37 (collectively, 'Defendants'), alleging two primary claims: (1) that the Local Union improperly amended its Constitution, violating the AFSCME Constitution, and (2) that the Defendants violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) by failing to certify his election as president. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion to dismiss, determining that the Election Claim was preempted by Title IV of the LMRDA, which designates the Secretary of Labor as the exclusive enforcer for post-election challenges, thereby precluding private action under Title I. Regarding the Amendment Claim, the court found that Commer had chosen to pursue internal union remedies with the International Union’s Judicial Panel and had not yet exhausted them, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Labor Union DisputeUnion Election ChallengeLMRDA PreemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesInternal Union GovernanceUnion Constitution AmendmentOfficer Election CertificationFederal Court JurisdictionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County Civil Service Commission v. Warren

This appellate opinion addresses an appeal by the Dallas County Civil Service Commission and Dallas County against a judgment in favor of Betty Jean Warren, whose employment termination was upheld by the Commission. The Court of Appeals found two key errors: the Commission erroneously placed the burden of proof on Warren during her hearing, violating her due process rights, and the trial court improperly submitted the "substantial evidence" issue to a jury, which is a question of law. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment. The case is remanded with instructions for the trial court to award Warren only attorney's fees related to her due process claim and to send the matter back to the Commission for a new hearing where the burden of proof will correctly rest on the County.

Employment LawDue ProcessBurden of ProofSubstantial Evidence RuleWrongful TerminationCivil Service CommissionPublic EmployeeAppellate ReviewRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
14
Case No. 04 Civ. 4272(BSJ)
Regular Panel Decision

Lifrak v. New York City Council

Safora M. Lifrak, an employee of the New York City Council, filed an action alleging gender and religious discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and New York State/City Human Rights Laws. The Council moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The District Court, presided over by Judge Stein, granted the Council's motion to dismiss the Equal Pay Act claim, finding that Lifrak lacked statutory standing. The Court determined that as an unclassified employee of a legislative body not subject to civil service laws, Lifrak did not meet the definition of 'employee' under the FLSA, which governs the Equal Pay Act. Consequently, the federal claim was dismissed, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationEqual Pay ActFLSAStatutory StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNew York City CouncilUnclassified Employees
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 7,774 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