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

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc.

Justice Powers dissents from the majority's interpretation of subsection 3(a)(2) of the Texas Open Records Act, arguing that it incorrectly mandates the disclosure of names and qualifications of Texas A&M University presidential candidates. The dissent contends this disclosure constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" by placing individuals in a false light, as many did not consent to be considered and could suffer professional harm. Powers believes the majority's reading renders the subsection superfluous and is legally impermissible due to privacy and constitutional concerns. The dissent advocates for disclosure only of candidates who explicitly applied or consented, proposing a reversal of the trial court's order and a remand for individual assessment.

Open Records ActPublic Information DisclosurePersonal PrivacyFalse Light Invasion of PrivacyPersonnel FilesUniversity Presidential SearchTexas A&M UniversityMandamusStatutory InterpretationDissenting Opinion
References
16
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

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

Vandiver v. Star-Telegram, Inc.

Star Telegram, Inc. sought records from Frank E. Vandiver, President of Texas A & M University, concerning the recruitment of Kevin Murray and Rodney Lee Dockery, under the Texas Open Records Act. Vandiver denied the request and failed to seek an opinion from the Attorney General, leading the district court to grant Star Telegram's motion for summary judgment and issue a writ of mandamus. Vandiver appealed, arguing the records were confidential by law or pertained to student records under exceptions in the Open Records Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. The appellate court rejected Vandiver's arguments, stating the information did not meet confidentiality criteria and Vandiver failed to prove student consent or Dockery's student status. The court also dismissed Vandiver's claims regarding NCAA interference and the writ's breadth, ultimately affirming the district court's judgment.

Open Records ActPublic InformationStudent RecordsConfidentialitySummary JudgmentMandamusTexas LawUniversity RecruitmentNCAA RulesAttorney General Opinion
References
4
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board

Justice Johnson's concurring opinion addresses the majority's conclusion that Rule 9.040 of the Industrial Accident Board is invalid under the Open Records Act. While joining Justice Doughty's opinion on protecting privacy, Johnson argues that the case should be remanded to determine Rule 9.040's validity, fearing the majority's decision could harm the Texas workmen’s compensation system and lead to employment discrimination against claimants. He contends that Rule 9.040, promulgated under the Board's statutory authority (Article 8307(4) and (9)), could be considered 'information deemed confidential by statutory law' under Section 3(a)(1) of the Open Records Act if it's necessary to achieve legislative goals. Johnson also highlights the injustice to claimants who relied on Rule 9.040's confidentiality between 1961 and 1973, suggesting their information should be deemed confidential by judicial decision.

Open Records ActIndustrial Accident BoardWorkmen's Compensation Actconfidentialityadministrative rulesstatutory interpretationright to privacyemployment discriminationlegislative intentsummary judgment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

York v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp.

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

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 11,668 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