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. 13-14-00293-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. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. 13-09-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2011

Humberto A. Rangel v. Nueces County

Humberto A. Rangel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Nueces County and the denial of his cross-motion regarding a workers' compensation dispute. Rangel sustained a lower back injury in 2003 while working as a mechanic's assistant for Nueces County, a self-insured entity. After experiencing subsequent back pain incidents in 2004 and 2006, the DWC ruled the 2006 incident was a new injury, not an exacerbation of the 2003 injury. The appellate court reviewed conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Chodosh and Dr. Puentes, finding a genuine issue of material fact on the causality of Rangel's 2006 pain. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Rangel's summary judgment, reversed Nueces County's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar SpineMedical CausationAgreed Statement of FactsExacerbationHerniated DiscJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. 13-03-724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2005

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Nueces County

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, inmates at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF), sued Nueces County and two guards for sexual harassment and assault. They alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and premises defects under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted Nueces County's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against it. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that governmental immunity does not bar § 1983 claims and that the appellants sufficiently alleged a cause of action for premises defects by claiming the county's negligence in maintaining the facility (e.g., non-functioning cameras, unmonitored access areas) proximately caused their injuries. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, but required appellants to amend their pleadings regarding claims related to the 'use' of tangible personal property and negligent hiring/training/supervision to establish jurisdiction more clearly.

Civil RightsSexual HarassmentSexual AssaultGovernmental ImmunityPremises DefectsTexas Tort Claims Act42 U.S.C. 1983Subject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewPleading Sufficiency
References
35
Case No. 13-06-405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2007

Joe Guadalupe Ballesteros v. Nueces County, Texas

Joe Guadalupe Ballesteros appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit against Nueces County. Ballesteros, a former captain for the Nueces County Sheriff's Department, filed a workers' compensation claim after a duty-related motor vehicle accident. His employment was subsequently terminated, leading him to sue the county for retaliation. The trial court dismissed the case due to Ballesteros's failure to comply with the notice requirements of Texas Local Government Code section 89.0041, which mandates written notice to county officials within 30 days of filing suit. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that compliance with this statutory prerequisite was mandatory and its non-compliance deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction as per Texas Government Code section 311.034.

Workers' CompensationRetaliation ClaimGovernmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionNotice RequirementsPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissLocal Government CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 13-02-230-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2002

Nueces County and Larry Olivarez, Sheriff v. Gayle C. Ferguson

Gayle Ferguson, an employee of the Nueces County Sheriff's Department, filed a grievance after being denied a training officer position in 1996, which was awarded to Stanley Repka despite the Civil Service Commission ruling in Ferguson's favor. Subsequently, Ferguson was terminated in 2001 and appealed this decision, resulting in a reduction to a ninety-day suspension by the Commission. Ferguson then amended his lawsuit against Nueces County and Sheriff Larry Olivarez, seeking various forms of relief including placement in the training officer position, reinstatement, back pay, and damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent violation of employment policies. The appellants, Nueces County and Sheriff Larry Olivarez, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity and Ferguson's failure to comply with statutory appeal requirements. The trial court denied this plea, leading to the current interlocutory appeal where the appellate court reversed and rendered the trial court's order, dismissing Ferguson's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealEmployment LawCivil Service CommissionPublic Official ImmunityDamagesIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent Employment PoliciesGovernmental Immunity
References
65
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia-Marroquin v. Nueces County Bail Bond Board

Delma J. Garcia-Marroquin, a licensed bondsman, sued the Nueces County Bail Bond Board, alleging inaccurate accounting procedures and challenging the Board's authority to impose a title policy insurance requirement. The trial court issued temporary injunctions but later dissolved them and dismissed the entire suit for lack of jurisdiction, citing Garcia-Marroquin's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, the court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the causes of action for damages, injunctive relief (regarding accounting procedures and the insurance requirement), and declaratory judgments, reversing and remanding those issues for further proceedings. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Garcia-Marroquin's statutory de novo appeal of the Board's decision to suspend her license for failing to maintain title policy insurance, finding that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for that specific claim. The court also affirmed the trial court's decision to dissolve the injunctions due to defects in form and overbreadth.

Bail Bond ActAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionInjunctionsDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewTemporary Injunction
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Nueces County Appraisal District

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Nueces County Appraisal District in an ad valorem property tax case. HUD owned property on January 1, 1991, which was valued at $1,933,913 by the Appraisal District. HUD protested this appraisal to the Appraisal Review Board, which upheld the valuation on August 2, 1991. HUD subsequently sold the property on August 20, 1991, and filed a petition for de novo review in district court on September 25, 1991. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that HUD lacked standing as it was no longer the 'property owner' at the time of filing the appeal, despite remaining personally liable for the 1991 taxes. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that HUD, as the owner on January 1, 1991, and the party personally liable for the property taxes, did have standing to appeal the property appraisal.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxStandingJudicial ReviewAppraisal DistrictAppraisal Review BoardSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeProperty OwnerTaxpayer Rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,614 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