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. Nos. 03-14-00283-CV and 03-14-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. American Youthworks, Inc., D/B/A American Youthworks Charter School Honors Academy, Inc., D/B/A Honors Academy And Azleway Inc., D/B/A Azleway Charter School

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner of Education Mike Morath against temporary injunctions granted to three charter holders: American YouthWorks, Inc., Honors Academy, Inc., and Azleway, Inc. The charter holders sued after the Commissioner initiated charter revocation proceedings under new 2013 legislation targeting underperforming open-enrollment charter schools. The district court had temporarily enjoined further revocation actions. The appellate court examined whether the charter holders' claims, including constitutional and ultra vires assertions, could overcome sovereign immunity and invoke the district court's inherent jurisdiction, given statutory prohibitions on judicial review. The court ultimately concluded that the pleadings did not sufficiently invoke such inherent jurisdiction, and thus, the claims were barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the vacating of the injunctions and dismissal of the suits.

Education LawCharter SchoolsCharter RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionsDeclaratory ReliefUltra Vires Claims
References
71
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency v. Maxwell

This case involves the constitutionality of former TEX.EDUC.CODE § 35.030, which mandated confidentiality for TAAS tests and prevented parents from viewing them. Larry Maxwell and other parents sued the Texas Education Agency and other defendants, asserting violations of their constitutional rights, particularly their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and education. The trial court initially found the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction. However, while the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed Section 35.030, rendering the core constitutional issue moot. The appellate court vacated the injunction as moot but reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 despite the mootness of the primary issue.

Parental RightsEducation LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMootness DoctrineAttorney's FeesCivil RightsTexas Education CodeTAAS Tests
References
10
Case No. 03-15-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2015

the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner Michael Williams, acting as appellants, sought to revoke the charter of appellee Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School (ACT) following three consecutive years of unacceptable financial and academic accountability ratings. ACT challenged this action, alleging violations of its substantive and procedural due process rights, an unconstitutional taking of its property, and ultra vires actions by the Commissioner. The district court denied TEA's plea to the jurisdiction and granted ACT's motion for a temporary injunction, allowing ACT to remain open pending a full trial on the merits, citing significant constitutional questions.

Education LawCharter SchoolTexasDue ProcessProperty RightsInjunctionSovereign ImmunityAccountability RatingsUltra ViresAdministrative Law
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Honors Acad., Inc. v. Tex. Educ. Agency

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the vacation of temporary injunctions and dismissal of a lawsuit brought by American YouthWorks, Inc. (AYW) and Honors Academy, Inc. (Honors), two open-enrollment charter schools. The schools challenged the Commissioner of Education's decision to revoke their charters due to sustained unacceptable academic and financial performance, as mandated by the Texas Education Code. The Court held that charter schools, as governmental entities, do not possess a vested property right in their charters, thus rejecting due process and contract impairment claims. Furthermore, the Court dismissed ultra vires claims, ruling that the Commissioner's interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions were within his broad authority, especially considering legislative intent to limit judicial review of such administrative decisions.

Charter School RevocationOpen-Enrollment Charter SchoolsSovereign ImmunityUltra ViresDue ProcessContract ClauseVested Property RightsTexas Education CodeAcademic AccountabilityFinancial Accountability
References
44
Case No. 03-23-00279-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Mike Morath, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education for the Texas Education Agency v. Texas State Teachers Association

The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a challenge brought by the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) against Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, concerning the validity of administrative Rule 97.1075(c)(1). TSTA contended that the rule, which grants "final" and "sole" authority to operating partners over district employees assigned to charter schools, infringed upon teachers' statutory rights. The trial court sided with TSTA, declaring the entire subsection invalid. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of parts (C) and (D) of the rule, agreeing they improperly curtailed teachers' rights by making decisions unreviewable. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding parts (A), (B), and (E), deeming them valid because they pertain to employees directly hired by the operating partner and do not impact the statutory protections of public school district teachers. The final ruling was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

Administrative LawEducation LawCharter SchoolsStatutory InterpretationAgency RulesTeachers' RightsTexas Education AgencySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule Validity
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05619 [174 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Matter of Board of Educ. of The Hudson City Sch. Dist. (Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Columbia County, Local 811, Hudson City Sch. Dist. Aides Unit)

This case involves an appeal by the Board of Education of the Hudson City School District (petitioner) from an order and judgment denying its application to permanently stay arbitration. The dispute arose after modifications to prescription drug benefits in a collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Civil Service Employees Association (Union), leading to a grievance filed by Union representatives concerning retiree benefits. The District denied the grievance, arguing untimeliness and lack of Union representation for retirees. The Supreme Court found the matter arbitrable, dismissing the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement created a reasonable relationship between the dispute and the CBA, making the issue arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration DisputeGrievance ProcedurePrescription Drug BenefitsRetiree BenefitsArbitrabilityContract InterpretationLabor LawPublic Sector EmploymentSchool District
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
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. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

WEST ORANGE-COVE SCHOOL DIST. v. Alanis

Four school districts, led by West Orange-Cove, appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas school finance system. They contended that increasing education costs compelled them to levy taxes at the maximum allowable rate, thus transforming the local property tax into an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to sufficiently allege that they were forced to tax at the maximum rate to provide a constitutionally-mandated accredited education, as opposed to an enriched education they desired. The court also determined the claim was not ripe, emphasizing that the districts had not demonstrated a loss of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates concerning their state-imposed educational obligations.

School Finance ReformEducation Funding DisparitiesState Ad Valorem Tax ChallengeConstitutional Law (Texas)Judicial RestraintRipeness of ClaimsEducational AccountabilityLocal Taxing Authority DiscretionProperty Tax CapPublic School System
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 2,971 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