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

Montgomery County v. Park

David Park, a patrol lieutenant for Montgomery County, reported alleged sexual harassment by a County Commissioner. Following this report, Park's additional duties as a security coordinator for convention center events were reassigned. Park sued Montgomery County, claiming retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act, arguing that the reassignment constituted an adverse personnel action. The Texas Supreme Court adopted an objective standard for 'adverse personnel action,' requiring the action to be materially adverse enough to deter a reasonable, similarly situated employee from reporting a violation. The Court concluded that the loss of Park's first choice of convention center jobs did not meet this standard, as it did not impact his core job compensation, advancement, or overall access to extra work. Therefore, the Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and ruled in favor of Montgomery County.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationAdverse Personnel ActionObjective StandardMaterial HarmPublic EmployeeTexas Government CodeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual Harassment Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery County v. Fuqua

Montgomery County, Texas, brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss a suit filed by Carlton Fuqua and Randolph Bowles. The appellees had sued the County and Kipling Oaks Homeowners’ Association over flooding and drainage issues. The County asserted governmental immunity and a statute of limitations defense. The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the statute of limitations and injunction issues. It reversed the trial court's decision regarding the cause of action under article 6702-1 of the County Road and Bridge Act, dismissing that claim with prejudice due to insufficient pleadings for waiver of immunity. However, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for the nuisance cause of action, deeming the pleadings sufficient. The overall decision was to reverse and remand.

Governmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionMotion to DismissCounty Road and Bridge ActNuisance ClaimFlooding and DrainageProperty DamageWaiver of ImmunityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
25
Case No. 14-22-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2023

Harris County Department of Education v. Keith Montgomery

Keith Montgomery, an assistant principal, sued Harris County Department of Education (HCDE) for race discrimination, retaliation, and violations of the Texas Whistleblower Act and Texas Constitution after an incident with a student led to discipline, denial of assault leave and workers' compensation, and non-renewal of his contract. HCDE appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals determined Montgomery failed to demonstrate HCDE's reasons for non-renewal were a pretext for retaliation. The court also found Montgomery did not exhaust administrative remedies for his Whistleblower Act or constitutional claims concerning his contract, assault leave, or workers' compensation benefits. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, granted HCDE's plea, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

RetaliationEmployment LawPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineSovereign ImmunityTexas Whistleblower ActTexas Labor Code Chapter 21Texas ConstitutionDue Process
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montgomery County v. Grounds

This workers' compensation appeal concerns the death of Chief Deputy Bill Grounds, who suffered a fatal heart attack at his home following severe emotional trauma. The trauma stemmed from his employer, the Montgomery County Sheriff, failing to meet him as promised to discuss a grand jury investigation into altered sheriff department records, leading Grounds to believe he was being abandoned and betrayed. Although Grounds was later indicted for his alleged involvement in record alteration, the jury found that his injury and subsequent death resulted from mental trauma in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the mental trauma, preceding knowledge of the indictment, was the producing cause of his death. The court emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Act should be liberally construed and that compensation is due when a heart attack results from mental or emotional stress traceable to a definite time, place, and event within employment.

Workers' CompensationMental TraumaHeart AttackCourse of EmploymentProducing CauseIndictmentSheriff's DepartmentRecord AlterationEmotional DistressJudicial Review
References
12
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. 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. M2017-02492-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

LaSonya Robertson v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System

This slip-and-fall case involves LaSonya Robertson, a middle school teacher, who sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System after falling on a wet floor. She alleged negligence by custodians who inadequately placed wet-floor signs. The trial court initially found the school district 75% negligent and Ms. Robertson 25% at fault, awarding her $180,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the school district's negligence and denial of immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. However, the appellate court reversed the allocation of comparative fault to Ms. Robertson, determining the school district was 100% at fault, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Slip-and-fallPremises liabilityGovernmental tort liabilityComparative faultNegligenceWet floorSchool districtTeacher injuryAppellate reviewOperational decision
References
17
Case No. 09-03-051 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. John J. McDonnell and Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5

The Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (Fire Department) sued Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5 (the District) and John McDonnell, alleging improper transfer of property and breach of fiduciary duty. The District counterclaimed, asserting the original deed placing title in the Fire Department's name was constitutionally void and seeking a resulting trust. The trial court sided with the District, finding the deed void and imposing a resulting trust, and ruled against the Fire Department's claims. The Fire Department appealed, raising issues regarding McDonnell's fiduciary duty, the voidness of the deed, and the imposition of a resulting trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's findings.

Warranty DeedAssignment of LeaseBreach of Fiduciary DutyResulting TrustConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionProperty OwnershipPublic FundsVolunteer Fire DepartmentEmergency Services District
References
12
Case No. NO. 09-05-469 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

Mary Lou Wilcox and Michael L. Roscom v. John T. Marriott,Rebecca A. Marriott and Guy Williams, Sheriff, Montgomery County, Texas

The case of Wilcox v. Marriott involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the execution of a lien on homestead property in Montgomery County, Texas. Appellants Mary Lou Wilcox and Michael L. Roscom challenged a trial court ruling that found a property entirely exempt from a judgment lien due to amendments to Texas homestead laws that expanded the urban homestead size. The appellate court examined the interplay between pre-existing judgment liens and the homestead law changes effective January 1, 2000, which increased the urban homestead exemption from one to ten acres. It concluded that while the expanded exemption applied to writs of execution issued after January 1, 2000, the validity of a lien acquired before that date on the non-exempt portion of the property was preserved. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the abstract of judgment could attach to the property exceeding one acre, and remanded the case for a new declaratory judgment.

Homestead ExemptionJudgment LienTexas Property CodeConstitutional AmendmentReal Estate LawAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsDue ProcessTrial Court Error
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,649 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