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. 14-19-00883-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2021

Marguerite Tamasy v. Lone Star College System

Marguerite Tamasy sued Lone Star College System for breach of her employment contract, alleging that Lone Star failed to contribute to her Optional Retirement Program (ORP) account, instead erroneously forwarding funds to the Texas Retirement System (TRS) for fourteen years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lone Star. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that Tamasy raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Lone Star breached its contractual obligation to continue her ORP participation. Additionally, the court concluded that the Texas Government Code § 830.108, which provides a procedure for correcting such errors, was not intended to be an exclusive remedy, thereby allowing Tamasy's breach of contract claim to proceed.

Employment Contract BreachPension Plan DisputeOptional Retirement ProgramTexas Retirement SystemSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationExclusive RemedySovereign Immunity WaiverGovernment Code
References
37
Case No. 03-22-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

RJR Vapor Co., LLC// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, RJR Vapor Co., LLC

RJR Vapor Co., LLC sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas to recover protested tax payments on its oral nicotine products (VELO pouches and lozenges). The central dispute was whether VELO products are 'tobacco products' under Texas Tax Code Section 155.001(15)(E), which defines such products as 'made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute'. The trial court ruled in favor of RJR Vapor, granting a refund and declaring parts of the statute unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that VELO products are not taxable tobacco products, thus upholding the refund. The court also vacated the trial court's constitutional declarations and dismissed RJR Vapor's related claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, deeming them moot.

Tax LawStatutory InterpretationTobacco Products TaxNicotine ProductsOral NicotineTax RefundConstitutional ChallengesMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. 03-19-00750-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2021

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. appealed the trial court’s dismissal of its claims challenging an assessment of sexually oriented business (SOB) fees by the Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of Texas. Jai argued it was not an SOB and that the Comptroller retroactively applied rules, seeking declaratory judgments under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), alongside an ultra vires claim and a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the UDJA and ultra vires claims due to the redundant remedies doctrine. It also found that the APA claim lacked a justiciable controversy, as Jai filed its claim after the rule was applied and did not pursue a Chapter 112 claim for permanent relief. The court further noted that Jai did not properly plead a Chapter 112 claim, which would have allowed consideration of an oath of inability to pay, distinguishing its situation from the precedent set in EBS II.

Tax LawTexas CourtsAppellate ProcedureSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory ReliefAdministrative LawPlea to JurisdictionSexually Oriented Business FeesTax AssessmentJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. E2015-01466-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 27, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2016

Paul M. Martin v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc.

Paul M. Martin sued his former employer, Perma-Chink Systems, Inc., for age discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) after being terminated at age 60. The jury found in favor of Martin, awarding $132,040 in damages. Perma-Chink appealed, challenging the admissibility of evidence and the denial of their motions for directed verdict, new trial, and remittitur. Martin cross-appealed regarding additional attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the age discrimination judgment but identified an error in the damage calculation, remanding the case for a $20,219.05 remittitur to account for Martin's post-termination earnings and for the determination of his appellate attorney's fees.

Age discriminationTennessee Human Rights ActTHRAunlawful terminationemployment lawsales representativejury verdictappellate reviewremittiturback pay
References
54
Case No. 05-20-01114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Mark Holloway v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

Mark Holloway sued Dallas County Hospital District d/b/a Parkland Health and Hospital System (Parkland) under the Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCRHA). Holloway alleged race discrimination and retaliation after he was not hired for several positions and later removed from the Parkland account, which eventually led to his termination from Xerox. Parkland filed a combined plea to the jurisdiction and traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion, which the trial court granted, dismissing Holloway's claims with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Holloway failed to exhaust administrative remedies for most of his failure to hire claims and could not establish a prima facie case for the remaining two Senior Network Engineer positions due to lack of application and qualifications. The court also found Holloway could not establish indirect employer liability against Parkland for his termination from Xerox, nor could he prove a prima facie case of retaliatory termination, lacking "but-for" causation and sufficient evidence of pretext or knowledge of protected activity by Parkland's decision-makers.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationDiscriminatory PracticesEmployment LawFailure to HireSummary JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionTCHRATexas Appeals CourtWorkers' Rights
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System

Appellants Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. appealed summary judgments in favor of Christus Spohn Health System regarding medical expenses for Judy Ann Lanado, a seaman who suffered severe brain damage. Christus sought payment based on a sworn account, a guarantee, and maritime maintenance and cure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Christus's counterclaim, finding an ineffective sworn denial and Christus's lack of standing for the guarantee. It also found a material fact issue regarding the reasonableness of medical charges under maintenance and cure. The court affirmed the denial of equitable subrogation to appellants but remanded for a determination of Christus's potential negligence affecting the medical bill.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentMaintenance and CureEquitable SubrogationSworn AccountDue ProcessAlien CrewmanMedical ExpensesTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
52
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,328 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