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

Hoisington Ex Rel. Hoisington v. County of Sullivan

In 1992, Nelida Hoisington placed her daughters, Camara and Cyre, with Bernadette and Vincent Gilmore. The Family Court of Sullivan County later declared the children neglected, placing them with Gilmore under the Department of Social Services' (DSS) supervision. In 1994, Camara was severely scalded while in Gilmore's care, leading to a lawsuit against Sullivan County and DSS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional rights violations and common law negligence. The court granted summary judgment to DSS, deeming it not amenable to suit under New York law. It also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Sullivan County, ruling that Camara's injury was due to negligence, not a constitutional violation, as no "deliberate indifference" was proven. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Summary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Constitutional RightsNegligenceFailure to TrainDeliberate IndifferenceFoster CareChild ProtectionMunicipal LiabilityPendent Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zalewska v. County of Sullivan, New York

Plaintiff Grazyna Zalewska, a van driver for Sullivan County, was transferred after refusing to wear a pants uniform, citing deeply held cultural beliefs for wearing only skirts. She filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, alleging violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court applied the rational basis test for the Due Process claim, finding the uniform requirement rationally related to safety and professionalism for public employees. For the First Amendment claim, the court determined that wearing a skirt did not constitute protected symbolic speech in this context and that any incidental restriction on expression was minimal and justified by governmental interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessSymbolic SpeechPublic Employee RightsUniform PolicyFreedom of ExpressionSummary JudgmentCultural Beliefs
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01123
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Kohn v. County of Sullivan

Burt Kohn, an administrator for the Sullivan County Adult Care Center, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing based on charges of misconduct and incompetence. The charges stemmed from allegations that he suggested a subordinate share login credentials for a CDC database and asked staff to volunteer to test positive for COVID-19. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the determination by annulling two charges related to 'directing' password sharing, finding only a 'suggestion' was made. However, it sustained charges of misconduct and incompetence for the suggestion itself, noting potential penalties for non-compliance with rules, and upheld charges regarding his inappropriate COVID-19 remarks. The court ultimately affirmed the termination penalty, deeming it proportionate given his role during the pandemic.

Civil Service LawMisconduct ChargesIncompetence ChargesEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPassword Sharing ProhibitionCOVID-19 ReportingNursing Home Administration
References
5
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. 14-07-01042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

Tenaska Frontier Partners, LTD v. Bill Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as Tax Collector for Grimes County, Anderson-Shiro Consolidated Independent School District and Grimes County

Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. attempted to pay its ad valorem taxes by mail, but the payment was returned due to insufficient postage. The tax collector, Bill Sullivan, then marked the payment as delinquent and assessed penalties and interest amounting to $159,158.66. Tenaska paid under protest and sought a refund, which was denied. The company subsequently filed suit, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. This court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that insufficient postage does not constitute "postage prepaid" under section 1.08 of the Tax Code, thus making the initial payment untimely. The court emphasized that an unambiguous statute should be construed according to its plain language and that a liberal construction does not permit altering statutory language.

Taxation LawAd Valorem TaxesProperty TaxDelinquent PaymentInsufficient PostageStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTax Code Section 1.08Mailbox RuleAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 6,696 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