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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Brentwood Academy sued the Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (TSSAA) and its Executive Director, Ronnie Carter, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to TSSAA's Recruiting Rule. The court found the rule unconstitutional as applied to Brentwood Academy for its 'Spring Practice Letter' and complimentary tickets, ruling it was not narrowly tailored, violated substantive due process due to vagueness and lack of notice, and procedural due process because of the consideration of ex parte evidence during deliberations. Consequently, the court declared the August 23, 1997 penalties imposed by the TSSAA against Brentwood Academy void and enjoined them.

Education LawSports LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessFreedom of SpeechRecruiting RuleState ActorUnconstitutional As AppliedInjunctive Relief
References
35
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Mount Sinai and Port Jefferson School Districts had a long-standing contract for Mt. Sinai to send its high school students to Port Jefferson. Following a deterioration of relations and an increase in Mt. Sinai's student population, Mt. Sinai decided to build its own high school. New York Education Law § 3014-c was enacted, requiring sending districts to consider teachers from receiving districts as their own employees. Mt. Sinai challenged this statute, alleging various constitutional violations. The court dismissed claims by teacher, parent/student, and taxpayer plaintiffs for lack of standing, and then dismissed the remaining Contract Clause claim by Mt. Sinai, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

School DistrictsTeacher TenureEducation LawContract ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStandingAbstention DoctrineSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. 2-08-266-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2009

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Appellant Jane Doe, individually and as next friend for her daughter Sally Doe, a minor, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment motions of appellees Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. (TASB, Inc.) and Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (TASB RMF). The case originated from sexual assaults committed by a school bus driver, John Paul Emenhiser, against Sally Doe. Appellant later sued appellees seeking a declaration that Emenhiser was an insured under their coverage to the Denton Independent School District (DISD), which would obligate appellees to satisfy a $5,000,000 judgment appellant obtained against Emenhiser. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that an indemnity clause in a prior settlement agreement between appellant and DISD precluded appellees' responsibility to pay the judgment, thereby rendering the coverage issue moot.

Sexual MisconductSummary JudgmentIndemnity AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryContract InterpretationMinor's RightsQuasi-EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCoverage DisputeSchool Liability
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Stephen Wilson, a former teacher for Dallas Independent School District (DISD), appealed the trial court's judgment which granted DISD’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, dismissing Wilson’s Whistleblower Act cause of action. Wilson alleged he was coerced by assistant principals into illegally changing a student athlete's grade to maintain the student’s eligibility for extracurricular activities, a violation of the 'no pass, no play' rule and other statutes. He reported these alleged violations to school board members, an area superintendent, DISD’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the District Attorney’s office, and the University Interscholastic League. Following his reports, Wilson claims his class was eliminated, he was reprimanded, received a negative performance evaluation, and was denied interviews at other DISD schools, leading to a lower-paying position in another district. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Wilson failed to report a violation of law as defined by the Whistleblower Act because his reports did not assert the student actually participated in extracurricular activities while ineligible, and his arguments regarding other statutes were not properly preserved for appeal in the trial court.

Whistleblower Protection ActGovernmental ImmunityPublic EmployeeGrade TamperingExtracurricular EligibilityNo Pass No Play RuleTexas Education CodeTexas Penal CodeSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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. 03-97-00192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1998

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal from the District Court of Travis County between the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (Appellant) and the Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund, Individually and on Behalf of several Independent School Districts (Appellee). The parties jointly moved the Court of Appeals to vacate the trial court's judgment and render a judgment stating that the appellee should take nothing against the appellant. Citing precedent from *Starnes v. Chapman*, the Court noted that reversing the trial court's judgment effectively vacates it and aligns with their practice when rendering a new judgment. The Court granted the motion, reversed the trial court's judgment, and rendered judgment that the appellee take nothing against the appellant. The decision was rendered per curiam by Justices Powers, Kidd, and B. A. Smith.

Texas Court of AppealsJoint MotionVacate JudgmentRender JudgmentTake NothingWorkers' CompensationSelf-Insurance FundInsurance Guaranty AssociationAppellate PracticePer Curiam
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves appellant Jane Doe, individually and as next friend for her daughter Sally Doe, appealing a trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Texas Association of School Boards, Inc. (TASB, Inc.) and Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (TASB RMF). Sally Doe was sexually assaulted by a school bus driver, John Paul Emenhiser. Jane Doe initially sued Emenhiser, then added the Denton Independent School District (DISD) and subsequently appellees (TASB, Inc. and TASB RMF), who provided liability coverage to DISD. Appellant sought a declaration that Emenhiser was an insured under appellees' Sexual Misconduct Claims Endorsement, obligating them to defend him and satisfy any judgment. Appellees countered that no obligation existed due to an exclusion for criminal acts and asserted a counterclaim for contractual indemnity based on a settlement agreement between appellant and DISD. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, holding that the settlement agreement's indemnity provisions precluded appellees' responsibility to pay any judgment obtained against Emenhiser, thereby rendering the coverage issue moot as to appellant.

Summary JudgmentIndemnity AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryContract InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeSexual MisconductMinor's RightsNext Friend RepresentationQuasi-EstoppelAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Four school districts, led by West Orange-Cove, appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas school finance system. They contended that increasing education costs compelled them to levy taxes at the maximum allowable rate, thus transforming the local property tax into an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to sufficiently allege that they were forced to tax at the maximum rate to provide a constitutionally-mandated accredited education, as opposed to an enriched education they desired. The court also determined the claim was not ripe, emphasizing that the districts had not demonstrated a loss of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates concerning their state-imposed educational obligations.

School Finance ReformEducation Funding DisparitiesState Ad Valorem Tax ChallengeConstitutional Law (Texas)Judicial RestraintRipeness of ClaimsEducational AccountabilityLocal Taxing Authority DiscretionProperty Tax CapPublic School System
References
36
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,859 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