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

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2006

Texas Ass'n of School Boards Risk Management Fund v. Benavides Independent School District

The Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims brought by the Benavides Independent School District. The School District had sued for breach of contract, torts (DTPA, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duties, negligence, gross negligence), and a declaratory action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for contractual claims, citing a waiver of immunity under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as supported by Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the tort claims, ruling that governmental immunity from suit had not been waived for these claims, thereby dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that governmental immunity exists between political subdivisions unless expressly waived.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Midlothian v. Black

Letha Black's property experienced increased water flow and damage after the City of Midlothian approved a residential subdivision's drainage detention pond. Black sued Midlothian, alleging a violation of the Texas Water Code and an inverse condemnation claim. Midlothian filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The appellate court held that the Legislature had not clearly and unambiguously waived Midlothian's immunity for the Water Code claim. Furthermore, the court found Black failed to sufficiently plead a valid inverse condemnation claim by not alleging that Midlothian knew the damage was substantially certain to occur. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's denial of Midlothian's plea to the jurisdiction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Black's suit against Midlothian.

Governmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationWater Code ViolationPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunitySurface Water DiversionProperty DamageTexas Constitution Article I Section 17Municipal ImmunityStatutory Interpretation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Jill Herz, P.C.

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction against Jill Herz, P.C.'s claim for attorney's fees under the Texas Labor Code. Herz represented Clifford Beamon, a firefighter who received worker's compensation benefits from the City and later secured a third-party settlement. Herz sought attorney's fees from the City's reimbursement amount, but the City asserted governmental immunity. The appellate court reviewed the plea de novo and concluded that the Texas Labor Code, specifically section 417.003, does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against municipalities acting as self-insurers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and remanded the cause.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodePlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealReimbursementSelf-Insured MunicipalityStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. 15-24-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Edward Rudolph Turnbull, IV v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Daniela Grosz, Daniel Martinez, Seana Willing, John S. Brannon, Amanda Kates, Jenny Hodgkins, and the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Cindy v. Tisdale, Steve Benesh, Laura Gibson, Kennon Lily Wooten

This document is an appellee's brief filed by Jenny Hodgkins in an appeal before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Hodgkins is the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA). The appeal stems from a trial court's decision to grant Hodgkins's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing claims brought by Appellant Edward Randolph Turnbull, IV. Hodgkins argues that Turnbull lacks standing to challenge prosecutorial decisions regarding other attorneys and that she is immune from suit under sovereign immunity and Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.09. She contends her actions were ministerial and within her official duties, not ultra vires or violative of constitutional rights.

Appellate CourtPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityStandingDue ProcessEqual ProtectionUltra ViresAttorney DisciplineState Bar Act
References
59
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. County of Nassau

Plaintiff Martin Harris filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution following his February 2006 arrest and subsequent acquittal. He sued the County of Nassau, the Village of Hempstead, the Village of Hempstead Police Department, Detectives James Hendry and Gerard Giambruno, Police Officer Edward A. Matalone, and an Assistant District Attorney Ci-accio. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, finding probable cause for Harris's arrest, thus barring claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The court also held that officers were protected by qualified immunity and the Assistant District Attorney by prosecutorial immunity. Other claims for due process, equal protection, and conspiracy were dismissed for lack of factual support. With all federal claims dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

Civil RightsFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProsecutorial ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityProbable CauseDue ProcessEqual Protection
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 1,194 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