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. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Case No. 03-23-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2024

Norman Engel v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Cassie Brown, in Her Official Capacity The State of Texas and the Attorney General of the State of Texas by and Through Ken Paxton in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas And Illinois National Insurance Company

Norman Engel, an injured worker, sued his workers’ compensation carrier and several Texas State entities after an administrative law judge upheld his Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) certification. Engel challenged the administrative ruling, asserting constitutional, statutory-conflict, and delegation issues related to the 90-day deadline for disputing MMI. The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction for the State parties and summary judgment for the insurance carrier. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found no errors in the dismissals and upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statutes and rules, rejecting arguments against the 90-day MMI dispute law and the delegation of rulemaking authority.

Workers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment Rating90-day ruleTexas Labor CodeOpen Courts ProvisionDue Course of LawSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure Act
References
41
Case No. 03-19-00750-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2021

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. appealed the trial court’s dismissal of its claims challenging an assessment of sexually oriented business (SOB) fees by the Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of Texas. Jai argued it was not an SOB and that the Comptroller retroactively applied rules, seeking declaratory judgments under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), alongside an ultra vires claim and a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the UDJA and ultra vires claims due to the redundant remedies doctrine. It also found that the APA claim lacked a justiciable controversy, as Jai filed its claim after the rule was applied and did not pursue a Chapter 112 claim for permanent relief. The court further noted that Jai did not properly plead a Chapter 112 claim, which would have allowed consideration of an oath of inability to pay, distinguishing its situation from the precedent set in EBS II.

Tax LawTexas CourtsAppellate ProcedureSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory ReliefAdministrative LawPlea to JurisdictionSexually Oriented Business FeesTax AssessmentJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
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. 03-21-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Texas Department of State Health Services, and Dr. Jennifer A. Shuford, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services v. Sky Marketing Corp., D/B/A Hometown Hero Create a Cig Temple, LLC Darrell Surif And David Walden

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Commissioner appealed a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the granting of a temporary injunction. The injunction prevented DSHS from enforcing amendments to controlled substance definitions and a website rule concerning Delta-8 THC. Appellees argued the Commissioner acted beyond her authority (ultra vires) and violated the Texas Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow proper procedures for schedule modifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that appellees had standing and presented valid ultra vires and APA claims. The appellate court also upheld the temporary injunction, citing the appellees' probable right to relief and the likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm.

Hemp legalizationDelta-8 THCControlled Substances Act (TCSA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Ultra ViresTemporary InjunctionSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)Cannabis regulation
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Morua

This case, Morua v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, addresses whether supplemental interrogatory answers must be verified under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Francisco Morua sued State Farm for workers' compensation benefits. State Farm's unverified supplemental responses identified an expert, Jeffrey C. Siegel, whose testimony Morua objected to at trial. The Texas Supreme Court resolved conflicting appellate court decisions, ruling that supplemental interrogatory answers must indeed be verified. However, the Court found Morua waived his objection due to a thirteen-month delay in raising it. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

DiscoveryInterrogatoriesVerificationExpert Witness TestimonyWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Court ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of ObjectionTrial Procedure
References
23
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. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 21,620 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