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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Hays County appealed a district court's judgment that found it violated the Open Meetings Act, Texas Constitution, and Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan. The district court had granted an injunction and attorney's fees to the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The appellate court reversed the findings regarding the Open Meetings Act and the Texas Constitution's 'open courts' provision, and dissolved the injunction. However, it affirmed that a single commissioner's alteration of the plan was invalid as an unauthorized act and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership.

Open Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeUniform Declaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanAbuse of DiscretionStanding
References
31
Case No. 03-02-00475-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal by Hays County against a district court judgment favoring the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The partnership had sought an injunction and attorney's fees, alleging that Hays County violated the Open Meetings Act, the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan submitted to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding regarding the Open Meetings Act and the 'open courts' provision of the Texas Constitution, dissolving the injunction. However, it affirmed that Hays County violated the Texas Constitution (Art. V, § 18) and the Local Government Code due to an invalid action by a single commissioner and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Texas Court of AppealsOpen Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeDeclaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanInjunction
References
31
Case No. 03-97-00490-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1998

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Appellants Martin Thompson and Charles Wood sued the City of Austin for discrimination and violations of the Open Meetings Act and Government Code after not being reappointed as municipal court judges. They alleged discrimination due to their advocacy for disabled rights and retaliation for their efforts to improve courtroom accessibility. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that municipal court judges are public officials, not employees, under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, thus not covered by its protections. The court also found no violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act and concluded that the City did not prematurely terminate their appointments.

Municipal Court JudgesPublic OfficialsEmployment LawDiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Open Meetings ActGovernment CodeSummary JudgmentSeparation of PowersJudicial Independence
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL) appealed a district court's ruling regarding public access to its records under the Texas Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Public Information Act (PIA). Larry F. York, the original requestor, intervened, and the Attorney General also appealed. The appellate court largely ruled that PIA exceptions for competitive harm do not override OMA's requirement to disclose open meeting minutes and their attachments, reversing parts of the lower court's decision. However, the court affirmed that specific pricing information in a federal application could be withheld. The court also denied attorney's fees to York, an attorney acting pro se, stating he could not 'incur' such fees under the PIA.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernmental TransparencyPublic RecordsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionAttorney's FeesCompetitive Harm
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Martin Thompson and Charles Wood, former municipal court judges, sued the City of Austin for their non-reappointment, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on their advocacy for disabled accessibility. They also claimed violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Government Code concerning their term of office. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City on all claims. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that municipal court judges are public officials, not employees under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, thus falling outside its protections. The court also found no violation of the Open Meetings Act due to appellants' waiver and insufficient evidence of a final decision being made in executive session, and dismissed the Government Code claim, asserting the Council did not prematurely terminate their appointments.

DiscriminationRetaliationMunicipal JudgesPublic OfficialsTexas Commission on Human Rights ActOpen Meetings ActGovernment CodeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawJudicial Independence
References
25
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2012

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Andres G. Gonzalez was expelled from United High School for assaulting a teacher, a decision upheld by the school board. He appealed to the district court, which voided the expulsion and awarded attorney's fees. United Independent School District appealed this decision. The appellate court addressed whether the trial court applied the correct standard of review (pure de novo vs. substantial evidence de novo) and whether there was sufficient evidence for findings of wrongful expulsion, due course of law violations, or Open Meetings Act violations. The appellate court sided with the school district, concluding the substantial evidence standard applied, no fraud, bad faith, or abuse of discretion by the school board, and no due course of law or Open Meetings Act violations occurred. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed.

ExpulsionStudent DisciplineDue ProcessTexas Education CodeOpen Meetings ActStandard of ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTrial de novoSchool BoardStudent Rights
References
29
Case No. 05-14-00759-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This appeal concerns the termination of Assistant Principal Adrian Peters' contract by the Dallas Independent School District (DISD). An independent hearing examiner and the Commissioner of Education found good cause for termination, citing inappropriate physical and verbal abuse of a pregnant student. The district court, however, reversed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the DISD School Board violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by voting to terminate Mr. Peters' contract in a closed session, and conditionally awarded attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, upholding the termination, finding substantial evidence for good cause, and determining that Mr. Peters lacked standing to assert the Open Meetings Act violation as he suffered no generalized injury and the procedural error did not lead to an erroneous decision. Consequently, the conditional award of attorney's fees was also reversed.

Education CodeTexasSchool DistrictOpen Meetings ActContract TerminationTeacher DisciplinePhysical ForceStudent RestraintDue ProcessJudicial Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case concerns the trial court’s denial of Tommy Swate’s application for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Medina Community Hospital and its Board of Managers. Swate, an independent contractor, was terminated by Hospital Administrator Richard Arnold following Board discussions regarding restrictions on Swate’s medical license. Swate alleged violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, contending his termination was void. The trial court found the termination was an administrative decision by Arnold, independent of any voidable Board action, and denied Swate’s claims while awarding attorney’s fees to the Hospital. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that Arnold's independent authority to hire and fire personnel rendered any alleged Open Meetings Act violations by the Board inconsequential to the termination's validity, and upheld the attorney's fees awards.

Texas Open Meetings ActDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefIndependent ContractorEmployment TerminationAdministrative DecisionGovernmental BodyBoard of ManagersAttorney's FeesAbuse of Discretion
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 8,712 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