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. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. 3-93-124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Reuters America, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas, and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that taxed information services but exempted newspapers. Reuters argued this violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Comptroller had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes based on its classification as an information service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the tax, concluding that it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it was not content-based, did not target a small group of speakers, and was a generally applicable sales tax. The court also found that the tax scheme was rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as promoting literacy and administrative economy, and therefore did not violate equal protection.

Constitutional LawTaxationFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionInformation Services TaxNewspaper ExemptionTexas Court of AppealsFreedom of PressState Tax SchemeJudicial Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
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. 02-10-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

$8780.00 in United States Currency v. State

Anthony Jerome Snell appealed a default judgment that forfeited $8,780 to the State of Texas, after police found the money and 271 pounds of marijuana in his truck. Snell, who was arrested and later incarcerated, failed to file an answer to the State's forfeiture notice, leading to the default judgment. He argued his failure was due to accident or mistake, exacerbated by misleading advice from jail personnel and lack of legal understanding, rather than conscious indifference. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, found Snell's actions, though negligent, did not demonstrate conscious indifference, and noted the State failed to prove injury or undue delay. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentCivil ForfeitureMotion to Set AsideCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseNew TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 03-00-00603-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Daniel T. O'Dell v. Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Daniel T. O'Dell appealed from a trial court order that granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the appellees, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas, and John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas. O'Dell's complaint was vague but appeared to allege a breach of contract related to electrical generator installation or repair in state-owned buildings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing the State's sovereign immunity which protects it from lawsuits for damages unless waived. The court noted that an administrative procedure established by the legislature is the exclusive method for resolving such breach of contract claims against the State. Additionally, the court addressed O'Dell's complaints regarding a jury trial and a worker's compensation issue, finding no error.

Breach of ContractSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureState GovernmentTexas LawJury TrialWorker's Compensation IssueGovernment CodeLabor Code
References
12
Case No. Tennessee Claims Commission No. 200057; Appeal No. 01A01-9901-BC-00018
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1999

Sinclair v. State of TN

Daniel L. Sinclair, a former Associate Director for Facilities Maintenance at Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), appealed the dismissal of his whistleblower claim against the State of Tennessee. Sinclair alleged he was terminated in 1993 for reporting safety violations by his supervisor regarding asbestos removal, subsequently filing a claim under Tennessee's whistleblower statute (Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-1-304). The Tennessee Claims Commission initially dismissed the whistleblower claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the statute did not explicitly apply to the State and citing the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects the State from suit without express legislative authorization. Although the whistleblower statute was amended in 1997 to include state employees within its definition of 'employers,' both the Claims Commission and the Court of Appeals held that this amendment was not retroactive. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the whistleblower statute, as it existed at the time of Sinclair's termination, was not intended to apply to the State, and the subsequent 1997 amendment could not be applied retroactively as it would disturb vested rights, thereby upholding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Whistleblower protectionRetaliatory dischargeSubject matter jurisdictionSovereign immunityStatutory constructionRetroactive application of lawState employer liabilityTennessee Court of AppealsAsbestos safety violationsClaims Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York State

The plaintiff, pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging numerous constitutional rights violations by state and municipal defendants, including false arrests, excessive force, and retaliation, spanning 12 years. The claims included violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 14th Amendment, and New York State common law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the Attorney General. The court denied plaintiff's cross-motion. It granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim, claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's son, and the conspiracy claim, finding the latter barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. However, the court denied dismissal requests related to the statute of limitations (applying the continuing violation doctrine to § 1983 claims), Eleventh Amendment immunity (allowing individual capacity claims), and the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding the allegations sufficient to proceed.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFalse ArrestExcessive ForceRetaliationFirst Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEleventh Amendment
References
72
Showing 1-10 of 12,569 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