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. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 03-14-00771-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. And Shariz, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

This Accelerated Appeal Reply Brief is submitted by Appellants Sanadco Inc. et al., challenging the trial court’s judgment in Cause No. D-1-GN-13-4352. Appellants argue that the underlying administrative judgments, which support the Comptroller’s collection activities, are void and unenforceable. They contend that the audit procedures (AP92 and AP122) were not properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements, leading to ultra vires conduct by the Comptroller. Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction against the Comptroller's enforcement activities, as the administrative orders lacked a final judgment and were nullified upon the filing of petitions for judicial review. They also argue that Chapter 112’s prepayment provisions are unconstitutional and inapplicable to their claims challenging the validity of rules and statutes.

Administrative Procedure ActUltra ViresDeclaratory JudgmentTax AssessmentState TaxJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionStatutory AuthorityTemporary InjunctionAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. NO . 14-0776
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, in His Official Capacity The Texas State Board of Education And the Texas Education Agency v. the Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition Calhoun County Isd Edgewood Isd Fort Bend Isd Texas Charter School Association And Joyce Coleman

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed multiple challenges to the constitutionality of the state's public school finance system. Plaintiffs, including various school districts and associations, alleged the system violated constitutional requirements for adequacy, suitability, and financial efficiency, and imposed a statewide ad valorem tax. Reversing the trial court's extensive findings, the Supreme Court held that despite its imperfections, the school funding regime met minimum constitutional requirements. The Court emphasized its deferential standard of review, stating that it would not usurp legislative authority by dictating policy changes, and remanded the issue of attorney fees.

School FinanceTexas ConstitutionEducation SystemAdequacySuitabilityFinancial EfficiencyStatewide Ad Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewLegislative DiscretionStudent Achievement
References
20
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Case No. 03-21-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ken Paxton In His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question is whether Governor Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, can issue an executive order (GA-38) that prohibits local governmental entities, such as Harris County, from implementing face-covering requirements. Harris County officials contend these mandates are vital for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, concluding that the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in granting the temporary injunction, as the Governor's actions were likely ultra vires.

Texas Disaster ActExecutive Order GA-38Face Covering MandatesCOVID-19 MitigationLocal Government AuthorityGubernatorial PowersUltra Vires ClaimTemporary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
32
Case No. 03-04-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Kenneth Garrett v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Thomas A. Davis, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Travis County and Patricia Michele Padron, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

Kenneth Garrett, convicted of indecent exposure, was classified as a "high-risk" sex offender, triggering public notification requirements. Garrett sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), its director Thomas A. Davis, Travis County, and community supervision officer Patricia Michele Padron, alleging improper classification and false public disclosures about a "second conviction." The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants regarding the "high-risk" classification, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on his criminal conviction and privacy rights claims. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning Garrett's common-law tort claims (defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress) against Davis in his individual capacity, finding Davis failed to establish statutory immunity against claims for misstating Garrett's conviction history.

Sex Offender RegistrationHigh-Risk ClassificationIndecent ExposureCivil RightsDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentCollateral AttackStatutory ImmunityQualified Immunity
References
44
Case No. 02-11-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, reported alleged misconduct by his department, including issues with case interference and falsifying workers' compensation claims, to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. He also sent anonymous emails to city officials outlining these concerns and later sent a second email falsely claiming to be a retired officer to divert an internal investigation into the anonymous emails. Steele was subsequently fired. He sued the City of Southlake and Chief Wade Goolsby under the Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment and a plea to the jurisdiction to the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the City conclusively proved its affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely due to his untruthfulness and deceptive actions during the internal investigation, regardless of his protected whistleblower reports. The court emphasized the critical importance of truthfulness for police officers.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationTermination of EmploymentPolice MisconductUntruthfulnessDeceptionSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefensePublic EmployeeOfficial Capacity
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,767 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