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. 15-24-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2024

State of Texas v. Harris County, Texas

Appellees, Harris County, Texas, filed a motion requesting the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to vacate an injunction issued on December 6, 2024. The injunction prohibited Harris County from distributing funds under its Community Prosperity Program during the appeal's pendency. Harris County argues that the court improperly relied on uninvoked inherent authority, overreached its power as its jurisdiction was not threatened, and failed to consider required factors for injunctive relief. Harris County asserts that the injunction is unnecessary because the program's payments are not scheduled to begin until May 2025, providing ample time for the court to rule on the merits.

injunctionvacate motionappellate lawTexas courtsHarris CountyState of TexasCommunity Prosperity Programgovernmental immunityultra vires claimsGift Clauses
References
111
Case No. 01-24-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Harris County, Texas, Harris County Commissioners Court, Lina Hidalgo and Edward Gonzalez v. Jane Doe

Appellee Jane Doe, an employee at the Harris County Jail, filed suit against appellants Harris County, Harris County Commissioners Court, Lina Hidalgo (in her official capacity), and Edward Gonzalez (in his official capacity) under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Doe alleged sexual assault by an inmate due to understaffing at the jail. Appellants responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's order, finding that the TTCA's election of remedies provision barred the suit against the individual employees (Hidalgo and Gonzalez) and that immunity was not waived for Harris County and the Commissioners Court because the jail premises merely provided the backdrop for the assault, not its cause. The court rendered a judgment of dismissal of appellee's claims.

Texas Court of AppealsGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultJail ConditionsUnderstaffingElection of RemediesOfficial Capacity
References
33
Case No. 01-08-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Expo Motorcars, LLC. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Harris County Appraisal Review Board

Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and Harris County Appraisal Review Board. Expo contested the constitutionality and application of Texas Tax Code sections 23.121(b) and 41.44(a)(1) regarding the valuation of its motor vehicle inventory for tax years 2004 and 2005. Expo argued it was denied meaningful due process review, presented uncontradicted evidence of actual value, and claimed the statutory formula violated the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Expo's protest was untimely for 2004, the valuation method correctly used previous year's sales, and the tax code sections were constitutional as applied to Expo.

property taxmotor vehicle inventoryappraisaldue processTexas Tax Codeconstitutional challengesummary judgmenttax valuationstatutory interpretationappeal
References
4
Case No. 14-23-00348-CV, 14-23-00672-CV, 14-23-00736-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2024

Harris County v. Jerry Luman, Norman Verbosky, and David Williams

This consolidated opinion from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals addresses multiple whistleblower claims against Harris County. The court affirmed the denial of Harris County's pleas to the jurisdiction for Jerry Luman, Norman Verbosky, and David Williams, allowing their claims to proceed. Conversely, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment previously granted against Jerry Luman. For Mary Ann Carrion, Cindy Vara-Leija, and Dwayne Pacifico, the court affirmed the granting of Harris County's pleas to the jurisdiction, largely due to their failure to exhaust grievance procedures or establish a good faith report of a violation of law.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeSummary JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionHarris CountyTexas Whistleblower ActAdverse Employment ActionGood Faith ReportCausation
References
19
Case No. 01-05-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2006

HARRIS CTY TOLL RD. AUTH. v. Southwestern Bell Tel., LP

This case addresses whether Harris County or Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC) is responsible for utility relocation costs necessitated by the construction of the Westpark Tollway. SBC sought reimbursement under Transportation Code section 251.102 and for inverse condemnation under the Texas Constitution. The Court of Appeals concluded that while SBC is an 'eligible utility facility,' section 251.102 does not waive Harris County's governmental immunity from suit. Furthermore, the court determined that SBC does not possess a vested property interest in the public right-of-way sufficient to support an inverse condemnation claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SBC and rendered judgment for Harris County.

Utility Relocation CostsGovernmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationTexas Transportation CodeTexas Utilities CodePublic Right-of-WaySummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionPrejudgment InterestConstitutional Law
References
46
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01180 [138 AD3d 89]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2016

Matter of Harris

Richard T. Harris, an attorney, was charged with five counts of professional misconduct by the Grievance Committee. His law firm, Richard T. Harris & Associates, P.C., pleaded guilty to multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing, stemming from submitting false fee applications and fraudulent change of venue requests to the Workers' Compensation Board. Harris was found to have engaged in a pattern of submitting false documents, some with forged signatures, and failed to adequately supervise his nonlawyer employees in these actions. The Special Referee sustained all charges, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the report, ultimately suspending Harris from the practice of law for three years.

Attorney MisconductProfessional EthicsGrievance CommitteeFalse FilingsSupervision FailureWorkers' CompensationAttorney SuspensionDisciplinary ActionEthical ViolationsFraudulent Documents
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

In re Harris

The State filed a civil petition to commit Bobby Lee Harris for involuntary treatment and supervision as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. The jury found Harris to be a sexually violent predator, leading to a civil commitment order. Harris appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence that his future acts would be predatory, and the trial court's partial directed verdict on his repeat sexually violent offender status. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of a behavioral abnormality predisposing him to sexually violent offenses, and that a partial directed verdict on the repeat sexually violent offender element was permissible when no fact issue exists.

Sexually Violent Predator ActCivil CommitmentBehavioral AbnormalityPredatory ActRepeat Sexually Violent OffenderLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDirected VerdictPedophiliaAntisocial Personality Disorder
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hardcastle v. Harris

This appeal concerns a pyramid sales scheme involving the sale of unregistered investment contracts by Frank Harris. Four purchasers (Hardcastles, Provance, Pope, and Pyron) filed separate actions against Harris, which were later consolidated. The trial court found Harris breached personal guarantee contracts with two buyers and violated the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 by selling unregistered investment contracts to all purchasers, awarding judgments and attorney's fees. Harris appealed, raising issues concerning the statute of limitations, waiver, estoppel, the amendment of complaints, and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, concluding that equitable estoppel prevented Harris from asserting a statute of limitations defense due to his actions to dissuade investors from independent legal action. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to allow amendments to the complaints and the award of attorney's fees. Additionally, the investors' fraudulent misrepresentation claims were dismissed due to a lack of reasonable reliance.

Pyramid SchemeUnregistered SecuritiesInvestment FraudSecurities Act ViolationEquitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationFraudulent Misrepresentation
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. Williams

Robert Williams, a Harris County constable, sustained injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from his self-insured employer, Harris County. Williams also pursued a claim against the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (the Fund) after the third-party tortfeasor's insurer became insolvent, receiving $100,000. Subsequently, Harris County refused to pay Williams impairment benefits, asserting a subrogation offset from the Fund payment. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel initially supported Harris County, but a district court reversed, ruling against Harris County's subrogation claim. This appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that a self-insured governmental entity is not entitled to subrogation against funds received by a workers’ compensation claimant from the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association.

Subrogation RightsTexas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty ActSelf-Insured Governmental EntitiesImpaired InsurerStatutory ConstructionInsurance Guaranty FundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsThird-Party Liability ClaimsTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 03-21-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ken Paxton In His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question is whether Governor Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, can issue an executive order (GA-38) that prohibits local governmental entities, such as Harris County, from implementing face-covering requirements. Harris County officials contend these mandates are vital for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, concluding that the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in granting the temporary injunction, as the Governor's actions were likely ultra vires.

Texas Disaster ActExecutive Order GA-38Face Covering MandatesCOVID-19 MitigationLocal Government AuthorityGubernatorial PowersUltra Vires ClaimTemporary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 426 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