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 On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKinney v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Hearth

Plaintiffs Mary McKinney and Mechler Hall Community Services, Inc. sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the New York State Department of Health from implementing recommendations to close Westchester Square Medical Center (WSMC) and other facilities. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, citing failure to state a cause of action, lack of standing, and failure to join a necessary party. The court initially granted a TRO for WSMC but, after reviewing arguments on standing and the constitutionality of the Enabling Legislation, denied the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. The court also granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the complaint, finding no constitutional infirmity in the legislation that delegated power to the Commission on Health Care Facilities in the 21st Century to make recommendations for health care system streamlining.

Constitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of Legislative AuthorityHealth Care Facilities ClosureTemporary Restraining OrderSummary JudgmentTaxpayer StandingCommon-Law StandingNew York State GovernmentAdministrative Agency Powers
References
31
Case No. 05-20-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2022

Ken Paxton and the State of Texas v. Arnieka Simmons

Arnieka Simmons challenged the constitutionality of Texas Civil Procedure Rule 510.4(c) and Property Code § 24.0051(a), governing 'nail-and-mail' service in landlord-tenant disputes leading to default judgments. The trial court sided with Simmons, but the State and Attorney General appealed, asserting Simmons lacked standing. The appellate court agreed that Simmons failed to show a direct enforcement connection (traceability) between her alleged injury and the State or Attorney General, which is a required element for standing. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Simmons's claims against the State and Attorney General for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Constitutional ChallengeDefault JudgmentLandlord-Tenant LawService of ProcessDue ProcessStanding DoctrineSovereign Immunity WaiverDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate JurisdictionPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
41
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. 07-10-00037-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2011

Jimmy Glen Riemer, Richard Coon, Jr., June Meetze Coon Trust, Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership, and W.R. Edwards, Jr. D/B/A W.R. Edwards, Jr. Oil and Gas on Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated v. State

This interlocutory appeal concerns the denial of class action certification in a dispute between landowners and the State of Texas over Canadian River boundaries. Appellants, including Jimmy Glen Riemer, Richard Coon, Jr., the June Coon Trust, the Johnson Borger Ranch Partnership, and Montford Johnson III, sought to certify a class action alleging an unconstitutional taking of their property. The trial court denied certification, finding some proposed class representatives lacked standing and that the representatives would not adequately protect the class interests due to conflicts arising from a 2002 Canadian River Mineral Boundary Agreement with the State and potential conflicts between landowners on opposite sides of the riverbed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding on standing for certain appellants but affirmed the denial of class certification, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the class representatives could not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class due to existing conflicts. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealClass CertificationStandingAdequacy of RepresentationCanadian RiverBoundary DisputeTakings ClaimRiparian RightsEminent Domain
References
33
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

Ray MacDonald D/B/A Aida's Around the Clock Bail Bonds v. State of Texas

This case addresses whether a Texas court can grant the State a new trial in a bond forfeiture proceeding. Ray MacDonald, doing business as Aida’s Around the Clock Bail Bonds, appealed the trial court's decision to grant the State a new trial after an initial judgment vacating a bond forfeiture. The appellate court examined long-standing precedent, which dictates that while bond forfeiture proceedings are governed by civil rules, they remain criminal cases where the State has no statutory right to a new trial. The court concluded that neither current appellate rules nor inherent judicial authority permits the State to seek a new trial in such circumstances. Consequently, MacDonald’s appeal was sustained, vacating the orders that granted the State a new trial and affirming the original judgment which held that the State take nothing.

Bond ForfeitureNew Trial (Criminal Cases)Appellate Jurisdiction (Texas)Criminal Procedure (Texas)Civil Procedure (Texas)State's Right to AppealStatutory InterpretationJudicial PrecedentBail BondsPlenary Power of Court
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,540 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