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

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Little v. Needham

Stuart Little appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Needhams after he suffered injuries during a horse riding activity at their stables, colliding with a tree near the track. He contended that his injuries were not an inherent risk of equine activity and that statutory exceptions to immunity applied, specifically faulty equipment, a dangerous latent condition, or the Needhams' willful or wanton disregard for his safety. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Little's injuries resulted from dangers that are an inherent risk of equine activity, such as a collision with an object and the unpredictable behavior of an equine. The court also found no evidence to support the application of any statutory exceptions to immunity.

Equine LiabilitySummary JudgmentInherent RiskPersonal InjuryTexas Civil PracticeHorse Riding AccidentAppellate AffirmancePremises LiabilityNegligence DefenseStatutory Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Waxahachie Independent School District

Tim Johnson and Ed White, former maintenance coordinators for Waxahachie Independent School District (WISD), sued WISD for unlawful termination, alleging retaliation for filing an employment grievance under Texas Government Code section 617.005. The trial court granted summary judgment to WISD, prompting an appeal. Appellants urged the appellate court to recognize a new cause of action for public employees terminated in retaliation for filing grievances, either as an implied statutory cause of action or a new judicial exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that section 617.005 does not create an implied statutory cause of action and declining to expand common-law exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at-willRetaliatory dischargePublic employeeGrievanceTexas Government CodeImplied cause of actionJudicial exceptionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewStatutory interpretation
References
21
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. No. 10-96-049-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1996

Matthew Carroll v. Kermit Black

Matthew Carroll sued several Texas A&M University officials claiming wrongful discharge. The defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting the defense of sovereign immunity, which the trial court granted. Carroll appealed, questioning if the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine applies to public employees asserting sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that without legislative consent or a statutory exception, sovereign immunity applies and is not overcome by the Sabine Pilot exception in this context.

wrongful dischargesovereign immunityemployment-at-will doctrineSabine Pilot exceptionpublic employeesplea to jurisdictionTexas A&M Universityappellate reviewgovernmental immunity
References
5
Case No. PD-1358-15, PD-1359-15, PD-1360-15, PD-1361-15
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Baumgart, Eric L.

The State of Texas filed a reply brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals, addressing whether the court of appeals erred in applying Penal Code § 2.02. The underlying case involves Eric L. Baumgart, convicted of violating the Private Security Act by acting as a security guard without a license. The State argues the court of appeals correctly held that exceptions not in the same statute as the offense, and where a prima facie case can be made without negating the exception, need not be pleaded or disproven by the State. It asserts this aligns with established common law and statutory interpretation, and that requiring the State to negate over 40 exceptions would lead to absurd results. The State respectfully requests the court of appeals' judgment be affirmed.

Criminal LawStatutory InterpretationExceptionsPrivate Security ActTexas Occupations CodeTexas Penal CodeLicensing RequirementsPeace OfficerPleading RequirementsBurden of Proof
References
27
Case No. 03-11-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

the Attorney General of Texas and the Commissioner of Insurance v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, Texas Farmers Insurance Company, and Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning public-information requests made to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) for rate-filing information submitted by a group of appellee insurers. The central issue was whether this information, declared "open to public inspection" by the Insurance Code, was subject to exceptions under the Public Information Act (PIA). The district court initially ruled that the PIA's exceptions applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of former section 2251.107 of the Insurance Code mandated public inspection without regard to the PIA's exceptions. The court emphasized plain-meaning statutory construction and dismissed arguments based on legislative history and constitutional challenges.

Statutory InterpretationPublic Information ActInsurance CodeOpen RecordsTrade SecretsRate FilingsTexas Department of InsuranceAppellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyTakings Clause
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez

This concurring opinion by Justice Brister, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, elaborates on why the Texas Supreme Court rejects adopting a blanket rule from *Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc.* regarding employer liability for independent contractors in security services. The opinion discusses existing exceptions to the general rule that employers are not liable for independent contractors' actions, including retained control, statutory duties, and inherently dangerous work. It argues against a new 'personal character' exception for security services due to sufficient public safety protections under current laws, the unclear boundaries of such an exception, the varied circumstances of hiring security, the non-delegable duties of peace officers, and the multiple considerations in choosing independent contractors beyond avoiding vicarious liability.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilitySecurity ContractorNon-delegable DutyRestatement of TortsTexas LawTort ExceptionsCommon Law DevelopmentJudicial Restraint
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,416 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