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. 13-05-555-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2006

Nieves Tamez v. Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

Nieves Tamez, an Edinburg Police Department officer, was injured in an automobile accident while on duty. He received workers' compensation benefits from the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML-IRP) and settled a claim with the at-fault driver. Tamez then sued TML-IRP for additional benefits under an automobile-insurance policy, alleging breach of contract for refusal to pay uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment against Tamez. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the contract interpretation, no waiver of exclusions by TML-IRP, and that Tamez was not a third-party beneficiary of the insurance policy. The Court also overruled Tamez's fourth issue due to inadequate briefing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractInsurance BenefitsWorkers' CompensationUnderinsured MotoristThird-Party BeneficiaryContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureEstoppelSubrogation
References
6
Case No. 13-14-00670-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2015

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Lloyd K. Aldridge

Aldridge is seeking recovery of attorney's fees for two tasks: negotiating a settlement for policy limits involving a prior injury, and pursuing recovery for the compensation carrier by preventing the running of the statute of limitations. The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TMLIRP) has filed a cross-claim against Lynn Hillyer, the defendant driver, and Aldridge argues that TMLIRP waived sovereign immunity by filing for affirmative relief. Aldridge also asserts that TMLIRP is not a legitimate intergovernmental risk pool as it was not created by governmental units. The brief argues for the proper allocation of settlement funds, including attorney's fees and expenses, from the $30,000 policy limits offered by Hillyer's insurer, to reimburse TMLIRP for its subrogation interest.

SubrogationSovereign ImmunityIntergovernmental Risk PoolAttorney's FeesSettlement AllocationDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTexas Government CodeTexas Labor CodeStatute of Limitations
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. Vick

The case involves an appeal by Kenneth Vick and members of Local Union Number 835, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, against an injunction prohibiting picketing of the Weakley County Municipal Electric System. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935 as applied to Weakley County and the right of a municipal electric system to enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. It ruled that while a municipal electric system operates in a proprietary capacity, it remains a governmental agency and thus cannot lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union, making strikes and picketing for such purposes illegal.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingCollective BargainingMunicipal CorporationGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionConstitutional LawCounty PowersPublic Employees
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1938

McCaleb v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses two key questions: whether municipal corporations fall under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law and if they can procure insurance from old line companies without adhering to said law. Eva McCaleb, as the beneficiary of a deceased employee, sued Continental Casualty Company, the insurer for the City of Corpus Christi, seeking benefits under a policy that mirrored the Workmen's Compensation Law. The lower courts upheld a plea in abatement, ruling that municipal corporations were covered by the law and the policy was inapplicable. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, asserting that the Workmen's Compensation Law does not extend to municipal corporations. Furthermore, the court held that the insurance company, by issuing the policy and collecting premiums, was estopped from disputing its validity and that the policy's rider granted a direct right of action to employees or their beneficiaries against the insurer.

Workmen's Compensation LawMunicipal Corporation LiabilityInsurance Contract InterpretationDirect ActionPlea in AbatementStatutory ConstructionEmployer-Employee RelationshipBeneficiary ClaimTexas LawOld Line Insurance
References
13
Case No. 2-07-128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

City of the Colony, Texas AND City of Frisco, Texas AND North Texas Municipal Water District v. North Texas Municipal Water District and City of Frisco, Texas AND City of the Colony, Texas

The City of The Colony, Texas, entered into a tri-party contract in 1998 with the City of Frisco, Texas, and the North Texas Municipal Water District for the construction and operation of a regional wastewater system. The Colony later ceased payments and sued Frisco and the District for breach of contract, declaratory judgment that no contract was formed, and rescission. The trial court largely granted summary judgment to Frisco and the District, leaving only certain claims for trial. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding The Colony's claims and the District's appeal. However, for Frisco's appeal, the court reversed the jury's $0.00 damages award, rendering judgment that The Colony owed Frisco $642,863.98 for breach of contract.

Contract LawWastewater SystemMunicipal LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelAppellate Review
References
112
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dingee v. County of Dutchess

The petitioner, a correction officer for Dutchess County, sought benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c after sustaining injuries when his chair collapsed. An arbitrator denied these benefits, ruling that the injuries did not arise from heightened risks specific to his employment. The petitioner then sought to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court denied the petition, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal, as the petitioner failed to identify any public policy precluding the arbitrator’s determination and the decision was consistent with existing decisional authority.

Arbitration awardGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cPublic policyCorrection officerWorkplace injuryDutchess CountyCPLR article 75Benefits denialJudicial interventionCollective bargaining agreement
References
9
Case No. 96 Civ. 6748
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Knapich

Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint a second time to add two causes of action against the New Rochelle Police Department (NRPD) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff alleged violations of his federal due process rights, including false arrest, denial of counsel, physical abuse, and slander, stemming from his arrest and interrogation for alleged sodomy. Defendants opposed the motion, arguing futility due to the plaintiff's failure to allege a municipal policy or custom as the cause of his injuries, a requirement for municipal liability under § 1983. The court, presided over by Judge Scheindlin, denied the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the proposed claims would be futile as they lacked the necessary allegation of a municipal policy or custom.

Civil Rights ActSection 1983Municipal LiabilityMotion to Amend ComplaintRule 15(a) FRCPPleading StandardsDeliberate IndifferencePolice MisconductFalse ArrestDenial of Counsel
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00340
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Walker (Read)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an order confirming an arbitration award that granted a 2% wage increase to firefighters represented by the Plattsburgh Permanent Fireman's Association. The City of Plattsburgh, designated as a fiscally eligible municipality, challenged the award, arguing it violated public policy by exacerbating its financial distress and exceeded the arbitration panel's authority. The court, however, found no strong and well-defined public policy precluding the award. It noted that the arbitration panel had complied with Civil Service Law § 209 by assigning the required 70% weight to the municipality's ability to pay. The court declined to reweigh statutory factors or engage in extensive fact-finding, concluding there was no basis to vacate the arbitration award on public policy grounds.

Arbitration AwardWage DisputePublic Sector LaborCollective BargainingFiscal DistressMunicipal FinancePublic Policy ExceptionAppellate ReviewCivil Service LawFirefighters Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,955 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