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. 03-00-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

Gerald H. Laubach v. State Bar of Texas

Gerald H. Laubach appealed the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas. Laubach had sued the State Bar alleging improper handling of his grievance against an attorney and violations of disciplinary procedures, claiming damages from the misuse of tangible property related to his grievance. The State Bar asserted sovereign and statutory immunity, which the district court upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims involving the negligent use of information in documents. Furthermore, the court noted that the State Bar and its agents are explicitly granted absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in the course of their official duties under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 15.11.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGrievance ProcedureProfessional MisconductState Bar of TexasOrder of DismissalJudicial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort Claim
References
12
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 On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas

The Rattikin Title Company appealed a temporary injunction that barred it from preparing legal instruments or providing legal advice in transactions where it was not a direct party or agent. The Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas initiated the injunction, asserting that these activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, upholding the trial court's finding that the title company's actions, even if inadvertent due to intertwined operations with a law firm, were illegal under Texas law. The court reiterated that the 'practice of law' includes conveyancing and advising on legal instruments for consideration, and such acts by a corporation are enjoinable. The decision emphasized that the preservation of status quo in injunction cases involving law violations means ceasing the unlawful acts. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in not enjoining the title company from certain actions for mortgage loan companies, classifying it as a novel legal question.

Unauthorized Practice of LawTemporary InjunctionTitle InsuranceLegal InstrumentsCorporate Practice of LawAttorney-Client RelationshipGrievance CommitteeState BarTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. 03-98-00598-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Hazel Simpson, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Son Brandon Simpson v. State of Texas Texas Youth Commission Giddings State School Steve Robinson, Individually and as Executive Director of the Texas Youth Commission and Stan Degerolami as Superintendent of Giddings State School And Sandra Burnham, Individually

Hazel Simpson, individually and as next friend of her son Brandon Simpson, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellees. Simpson had sued for common-law damages after being sexually assaulted by a student while teaching at Giddings State School, having previously received workers' compensation benefits. Her suit alleged negligence and intentional acts/omissions by appellees for failing to ensure her safety. The trial court barred her claim under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, finding workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Simpson's allegations did not constitute intentional conduct under the "substantial certainty" test, thus her claims and her son's derivative loss of consortium claim were barred.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortSummary JudgmentNegligenceSexual Assault (workplace)Loss of ConsortiumTexas Labor CodeSafe WorkplaceSubstantial Certainty Test
References
10
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
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. 15-25-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Texas State University and Texas State University System v. Stuart Patrick Wilkinson

This case involves an expedited appeal concerning a Texas Whistleblower Act proceeding and free-speech retaliation claims. Appellee Stuart Patrick Wilkinson, a public employee, reported potential illegal software licensing and evidence spoliation by Appellants, Texas State University and Texas State University System, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Audit Office. Following these whistleblower reports, Appellee alleges he suffered various adverse personnel actions, including denied promotions, reduced pay, and a hostile work environment, leading him to file suit after exhausting administrative remedies. The trial court denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction, and Appellee requests the appellate court to affirm this denial, arguing his claims are not barred by sovereign immunity and his petition is sufficient.

Expedited AppealTexas Whistleblower ActFree Speech RetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeAdverse Personnel ActionAdministrative RemediesTexas Government Code Chapter 554First Amendment
References
20
Case No. 24-0325
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2024

In RE THE STATE OF TEXAS v. the State of Texas

The State of Texas sought mandamus relief to prevent Harris County from distributing 'no-strings-attached $500 monthly cash payments' under the 'Uplift Harris' program. The State argued that this program violates the Texas Constitution's bar on 'gratuitous payments to individuals'. After the district court denied a temporary injunction and the court of appeals denied a stay, the Supreme Court of Texas granted the State's motion for temporary relief. The Court found serious doubt about the program's constitutionality and the potential for irreparable harm if funds were disbursed. Consequently, Harris County was ordered to refrain from distributing funds under the Uplift Harris program until further order of the Court, while the underlying appeal proceeds.

MandamusTemporary ReliefConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionGift ClausePublic FundsWelfare ProgramEconomic DevelopmentInjunctionAppellate Procedure
References
15
Case No. 03-05-00810-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas // State Bar of Texas v. State Bar of Texas// Cross-Appellee, Attorney General of Texas

Anthony L. Martin challenged a trial court's judgment holding him jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs. Martin, identified as an officer of the defunct corporation Pathfinder Capital, L.C., argued that the State lacked sufficient evidence of his officer status at the time the cleanup expenses were incurred. He also contended that the State's documentary evidence of cleanup costs was inadmissible as improper summaries. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding both legally and factually sufficient evidence to establish Martin's role as an officer and that the cost documents were properly admitted as public records. The court concluded that Martin was liable under tax code provisions designed to ensure payment of corporate franchise taxes.

Abandoned FacilitySalt Water DisposalCorporate Officer LiabilityFranchise Tax ForfeitureEnvironmental Cleanup CostsAdmissibility of EvidencePublic Records ExceptionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 14,550 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