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. 03-03-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2004

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF PARKS v. Shumake

A child tragically drowned in a man-made culvert within Blanco State Park, leading her parents, Ricky and Sandra Shumake, to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. The Shumakes alleged the culvert constituted a special or premise defect and a nuisance. The Parks Department sought dismissal based on sovereign immunity, asserting protection under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Recreational Use Statute. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of immunity for the nuisance claims but affirmed the denial for the premise defect claim, finding the Shumakes sufficiently alleged gross negligence under the duty owed to a known trespasser. The court also upheld the constitutionality and applicability of the Recreational Use Statute despite the entrance fee.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActRecreational Use StatutePremise DefectSpecial DefectGross NegligenceWrongful DeathAttractive NuisanceKnown Trespasser
References
0
Case No. 03-03-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Edward Lambright, Richard Moore, Eric Kimball, Terry Ricks, and Calhoun County Shrimpers v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission

The Appellants, composed of shrimpers from Calhoun County, challenged rules adopted and amended by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPW) regarding shrimping season, nursery areas, and bycatch reduction devices. They argued that the rules lacked reasoned justification and were inconsistent with the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TPW. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that TPW provided a reasoned justification for its rules, which were based on scientific evidence to prevent overfishing and promote efficiency in shrimp resource utilization, and that the rules were consistent with the SFMP.

RulemakingAdministrative LawEnvironmental RegulationFishery ManagementShrimp IndustryTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and CapriciousReasoned Justification
References
28
Case No. 15-24-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2025

Richard M. Young, Jr. A/K/A Richard Young v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, John Silovsky as Wildlife Division Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the State of Texas

This Appellant's Reply Brief concerns an appeal by Richard M. Young, Jr. against the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) challenging the dismissal of his claims. Young, a deer breeder, contests TPWD's interpretation of "wild animal" and its actions related to his breeder deer, ranch, and breeding permits, arguing that they constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without due process or just compensation. The brief highlights the argument that Young's selectively bred and confined deer are not "wild animals" under state ownership, and that his property interests, including land, business, and permits, are constitutionally protected. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, Young argues for independent judicial review of agency statutory interpretations and emphasizes TPWD's failure to address his broader property claims. The Appellant seeks a reversal of the dismissal order or, alternatively, an opportunity to replead his expansive claims.

Wildlife ManagementProperty RightsDue ProcessInverse CondemnationJurisdictional PleaStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureDeer BreedingChronic Wasting Disease (CWD)
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. 03-23-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Andrew Matej v. Texas Park & Wildlife Department

Andrew Matej, a former Park Ranger, appealed the district court's decision to dismiss his employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD). Matej alleged race and sex/gender discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his termination in September 2015. The termination was a result of an investigation into an alleged sexual act with his fiancée in a park office while on duty. The district court had granted TPWD's motion to dismiss, citing sovereign immunity because Matej failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, specifically by not identifying a similarly situated comparator. The appellate court reviewed Matej's claims regarding a tuna necklace, beard policy, and discussions about hunting and fishing, concluding that he did not provide sufficient evidence of comparable seriousness or adequate comparators to support his discrimination claims. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order, ruling that Matej failed to demonstrate that his claim fell within the TCHRA's waiver of immunity.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex/Gender DiscriminationTCHRASovereign ImmunityPrima Facie CaseComparator EvidenceTermination of EmploymentWorkplace MisconductAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lambright v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

This case involves an appeal by commercial shrimpers (appellants) against the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Commission (appellees) challenging the validity of newly adopted and amended rules. The rules shortened the fall shrimping season, expanded nursery areas closed to shrimping, and mandated by-catch reduction devices (BRDs) in shrimp nets. The shrimpers argued that the rules lacked reasoned justification, failed regulatory-impact analysis, were inconsistent with TPW's statutory authority and its Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, and deprived them of due process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of TPW. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that TPW provided a reasoned justification for the rules, supported by scientific evidence regarding overfishing and environmental protection, and that the rules were consistent with the SFMP, thus not exceeding its statutory authority.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawFisheries ManagementRegulatory ReviewSummary JudgmentTexasShrimpingOverfishingBycatch Reduction DevicesAgency Authority
References
51
Case No. 12-09-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2010

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department v. Kenneth W. Garland

Kenneth W. Garland, performing court-ordered community service for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) at Tyler State Park, fell from a pickup truck bed and suffered significant injuries due to alleged negligent operation by a TPWD employee. Garland sued TPWD, which subsequently filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the plea, leading to this interlocutory appeal. TPWD argued that Article 42.20(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure negated any waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for claims related to community service programs. Garland counter-argued that the driver's actions were ministerial, committed with conscious indifference, or that Article 42.20(b) was unconstitutional. The appellate court found that Article 42.20(b) unambiguously makes the Texas Tort Claims Act inapplicable to such claims and rejected Garland's constitutional challenges. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's denial of TPWD's plea and dismissed Garland's action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionTexas Tort Claims ActCommunity Service ProgramGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionConstitutional LawDue Process
References
25
Case No. 03-17-00703-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Ken Bailey and Bradley Peterson v. Carter Smith, Executive Director Clayton Wolf, Wildlife Division Director Mitch Lockwood, Big Game Program Director And Texas Parks &Wildlife Department

This document presents a concurring and dissenting opinion from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, authored by Justice Melissa Goodwin. The appeal stems from a dispute between deer breeders (Appellants Ken Bailey and Bradley Peterson) and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. Justice Goodwin concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal of Peterson's declaratory judgment and ultra vires claims due to lack of jurisdiction. However, she dissents from the majority's conclusion that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on Peterson's due process claims, arguing that he possesses a constitutionally protected property interest in his breeder deer. Justice Goodwin would reverse the grant of summary judgment for the Department and remand the issue of attorney's fees for reconsideration, asserting that the Department failed to demonstrate that its existing procedures adequately satisfy due process requirements.

Property RightsWild AnimalsDue ProcessCommon LawLegislative IntentState OwnershipWildlife RegulationChronic Wasting DiseaseSummary JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Ricky Shumake and Sandra Shumake, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Kayla Shumake

A child drowned in a culvert in Blanco State Park while swimming. Her parents, Ricky and Sandra Shumake, sued the Parks Department for wrongful death, alleging special/premise defect, nuisance, and attractive nuisance, claiming waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The Parks Department argued immunity under the Recreational Use Statute. The district court denied the plea to the jurisdiction but found the Recreational Use Statute unconstitutional as applied. This court reversed the unconstitutionality finding, upheld the Recreational Use Statute's applicability despite an entrance fee, and found no waiver of immunity for nuisance or attractive nuisance. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plea as to the premise defect claim, finding the Shumakes adequately alleged gross negligence under the known trespasser standard of care.

Wrongful DeathSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActRecreational Use StatutePremise DefectNuisanceAttractive NuisanceGross NegligenceKnown TrespasserGovernmental Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Dearing

This case is an interlocutory appeal concerning the re-certification of a class action alleging age discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. The applicants, Milburn Dearing, Kenneth Head, and Mike Warren, sued the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department based on a disparate-impact theory of age discrimination related to the reclassification of game-warden positions. A previous ruling (Dearing I) had reversed the class certification, concluding that disparate-impact age discrimination claims were not viable under the labor code. However, an intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision (Smith v. City of Jackson) clarified that such claims are cognizable under the ADEA, albeit with narrower scope and specific burden of proof standards (from Wards Cove). On remand, the district court reinstated the original class certification without modification. This court reverses the district court's re-certification order, holding that while disparate-impact age discrimination claims are viable under the labor code (incorporating Smith's interpretation of ADEA), the district court's trial plan failed to adequately address the specific elements of proof and the "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) justification as required by Smith and Wards Cove. The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing parties to amend pleadings and the district court to conduct a rigorous analysis for class certification consistent with the updated legal standards. The court also affirmed the application of the "single-filing rule" for administrative exhaustion.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactClass ActionClass CertificationTexas Labor CodeADEAWards Cove StandardsReasonable Factors Other Than AgeJudicial PrecedentStatutory Interpretation
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 5,965 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