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

Eddins v. Excelsior Independent School District

These consolidated actions address whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims stemming from a dispute over the educational rights of two children, Mary W. and Christy McD. The Magistrate Judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction, citing the lack of a common nucleus of operative facts between the federal claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for enforcing administrative orders) and the state law tort claims, and the predominance of state law claims. District Judge Hannah conducted a de novo review, affirmed these findings, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, thereby overruling plaintiffs' objections and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims.

Supplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsTort ClaimsFederal ClaimsEducational RightsDisability LawSection 1983Magistrate Judge ReportDe Novo ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texana Community MHMR Center v. Silvas

Silvas, an employee of an independent contractor, sued Texana Community MHMR Center after slipping on water and injuring her knee at Texana's facility in October 1998. Texana filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Silvas failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and did not allege facts bringing her claim within the TTCA's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Silvas contended that Texana had actual notice of the claim. The trial court denied Texana's plea. On interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed the evidence and concluded that Silvas's communication did not constitute actual notice under the TTCA because it failed to convey Texana's alleged fault or the identity of parties intending to hold Texana responsible. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to insufficient notice.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActActual NoticeInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitPersonal InjuryNegligenceWaiver of ImmunityAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saenz v. AUSTIN ROOFER'S SUPPLY, LLC

Plaintiffs Javier Saenz, Jorge Juarez, and Rebecca Arredondo filed a motion to remand their state law claims for breach of contract, assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision back to state court, while acknowledging federal jurisdiction over their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim. Defendants Austin Roofer’s Supply, LLC and Arturo Portillo opposed the partial remand. The Court granted the motion to remand for the tort claims (assault, battery, and negligent training, retention, and supervision) because they lacked a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim, thus failing supplemental jurisdiction requirements. However, the Court denied the motion to remand for the breach of contract claim, finding it shared a common nucleus of operative facts with the FLSA claim regarding unpaid wages, and therefore retained supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Removal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Breach of ContractAssault and BatteryNegligent TrainingNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionMotion to RemandFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
21
Case No. 13-23-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

John William Johnson v. Town of Fulton

Appellant John William Johnson challenged a permanent injunction issued in favor of Appellee Town of Fulton, arguing errors in subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. Fulton had sought injunctive relief against Johnson for obstructing Casterline Drive, a public right-of-way, and also requested declarations concerning nuisance and abandonment of an easement. Johnson contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the easement boundaries due to conflicting surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment, finding no material fact issue concerning the easement. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Fulton, concluding that the declaratory relief obtained was duplicative of the injunctive relief and appeared to be solely a vehicle for recovering fees.

Road obstructionPublic right-of-wayPermanent injunctionSummary judgmentSubject matter jurisdictionAttorney's feesDeclaratory judgmentEasement disputeProperty boundariesTexas Government Code
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brickey v. Dolencorp, Inc.

Plaintiffs, former employees, initiated a nationwide collective action under the FLSA and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 to recover for unpaid overtime. Four plaintiffs also assert state wage and hour law violations, seeking supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants moved to dismiss the Rule 23 state law class claims, arguing a lack of supplemental jurisdiction due to the absence of a "common nucleus of fact" and concerns about managing claims across potentially numerous state laws. The court denied the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently established a common nucleus of fact and that declining supplemental jurisdiction was not warranted at this juncture, despite potential future complexities with various state laws. The court emphasized judicial economy and fairness in hearing both federal and state claims together.

FLSACollective ActionClass ActionSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23Motion to DismissUnpaid OvertimeWage and Hour LawsCommon Nucleus of FactJudicial Economy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bass v. Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission

The Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission challenged the court's jurisdiction over an appeal filed by James Bass, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation. The appeal concerned interlocutory orders from a district court, which included granting partial summary judgment to the Planning Commission and deferring a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction by the Executive Director. The Executive Director argued for jurisdiction under Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting an implicit denial of his jurisdictional challenges. However, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's explicit deferral of the jurisdictional ruling contradicted any implied denial, or alternatively, effectively vacated any such implied ruling. Consequently, the Planning Commission's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

interlocutory appealsubject-matter jurisdictiongovernmental immunityplea to the jurisdictionpartial summary judgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeLocal Government Codemandamus reliefinjunctive reliefultra vires claims
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verdi v. United States

This case addresses the application of pendent jurisdiction in a Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) case where a state common law claim is asserted against a party over whom there is no independent federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs brought an action, including a claim against the Town of Huntington, following a slip and fall accident near a U.S. Post Office. The Town of Huntington moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Magistrate recommended retaining jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of pendent-party jurisdiction. The District Court adopted this recommendation, concluding that pendent-party jurisdiction is appropriate in FTCA cases under these circumstances to ensure all claims can be tried in a single federal forum. Therefore, the Town of Huntington's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for an interlocutory appeal was also denied.

Pendent JurisdictionFederal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallMotion to DismissPersonal InjuryFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCommon Nucleus of Operative FactInterlocutory AppealJudicial Economy
References
27
Case No. Claim #4179
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

In Re Agway, Inc.

Reliance Insurance Company (in liquidation) filed a motion on March 23, 2006, requesting that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York declare it lacked jurisdiction over Reliance's claim against Agway, Inc. (the Debtors) or, alternatively, abstain from hearing the Liquidating Trustee's motion to expunge Reliance's claim #4179. Reliance argued that the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempted federal jurisdiction and that the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court had primary jurisdiction under the 'first assuming jurisdiction' doctrine, or that Burford abstention was appropriate. The Liquidating Trustee opposed the motion, challenging Reliance's interpretation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the applicability of the abstention doctrines. The court denied Reliance's motion, affirming its core jurisdiction over the claim and finding Reliance's arguments for reverse-preemption, abstention, and first assuming jurisdiction to be without merit.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictionMcCarran-Ferguson ActAbstention DoctrineInsurance LiquidationClaim ExpungementFederal PreemptionState LawCore ProceedingsStatutory Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. City of Bellaire

Elbert Johnson, an employee of Magnum Staffing, suffered an arm amputation while working for the City of Bellaire on a garbage truck driven by Rosa Larson. Johnson sued the City and Larson for negligence, arguing a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming immunity and that Johnson's exclusive remedy was workers' compensation under the "borrowed servant" doctrine. The trial court granted the City's plea. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding a fact issue regarding whether Johnson was a "paid employee" covered by the City's workers' compensation policy, which is essential to determine if an alternative remedy existed and if immunity was waived.

Governmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceTexas Tort Claims ActPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentGarbage TruckRemand
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,038 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