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. 00-0994
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. County Bancshares, Inc.

VinceAnn Taylor filed a sexual discrimination claim against County Bancshares, Inc. d/b/a First National Bank of Newton under Title VII after her termination in October 2001. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was untimely and lacked merit. The court found that a factual dispute existed regarding the timeliness of Taylor's right-to-sue letter receipt. Furthermore, the court determined that Taylor established a prima facie case of discrimination, and the defendant's shifting explanations for her termination, along with circumstantial evidence of gender bias, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, allowing Taylor's wrongful termination claim to proceed to trial.

Sexual DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentMcDonnell DouglasReduction-in-ForceEEOCRight-to-Sue Letter
References
128
Case No. 01-09-00457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

Robert B. Taylor and R.B.T. Investments, Inc. F/K/A/ Gulf Oxygen Company, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company

Robert B. Taylor and R.B.T Investments, Inc. (collectively, “Taylor”) appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, “Allstate”). Taylor's claims stemmed from Allstate's handling of his defense in a prior automobile accident suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on Taylor’s tort claims, including negligence, vicarious liability, and tortious interference, concluding that Texas law does not recognize these causes of action against an insurer in this context. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding Taylor's breach of contract and statutory claims, stating that Allstate failed to provide sufficient analysis or evidence to support summary judgment on these specific grounds. The trial court's denial of Taylor's motion for leave to replead was also affirmed.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBreach of contractStatutory claimsNegligenceVicarious liabilityTortious interferenceAttorney-client relationshipTexas law
References
21
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Appellants Robert B. Taylor and R.B.T. Investments, Inc. (collectively, "Taylor") appealed a summary judgment in favor of appellees Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "Allstate"). Taylor sued Allstate for negligence, vicarious liability, tortious interference, breach of contract, and statutory claims related to Allstate's handling of an automobile accident defense that resulted in a settlement exceeding Taylor's insurance coverage. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on Taylor’s claims for negligence, vicarious liability, and tortious interference, concluding that Texas law does not recognize these causes of action in this context outside of a Stowers claim. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding Taylor’s breach of contract and statutory claims, holding that the Stowers doctrine does not negate an insured's contractual and statutory rights. The denial of Taylor's motion to replead was also affirmed as he had already amended his pleadings.

Insurance DisputeSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsVicarious LiabilityTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractStatutory ClaimsStowers DoctrineInsurer DutiesAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. 05-20-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Bryan Taylor and Melissa Taylor v. Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco

Bryan and Melissa Taylor appealed a trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco in a healthcare liability lawsuit. The Taylors alleged negligence related to spine surgery performed on Bryan Taylor by Dr. Stephen Courtney at Baylor. Their claims included failures in preventing unnecessary surgeries due to physician-owned distributorships (PODs), enforcing policies for medical device purchases, and physician retention. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in striking inadmissible hearsay evidence (Dr. Carmody's deposition) and concluding that the Taylors failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their negligence and gross negligence claims against Baylor.

Healthcare LiabilityMedical NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPhysician-Owned DistributorshipsPODsHearsay EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CarePeer Review
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emery v. Robertson County Election Commission

Taylor Ted Emery and Claude Bellar contested the August 1978 elections for Sheriff and Fourth District County Commission positions in Robertson County. The Chancellor initially found irregularities but believed they didn't affect the outcome for the Sheriff's race or one County Commissioner, though a supplemental opinion later ordered a new election for the second Commissioner. On appeal, the Supreme Court identified numerous violations of absentee voting statutes and inconsistencies in the lower court's rulings. The court determined that the extent of the irregularities, including the personal participation of the incumbent Sheriff in handling absentee ballot applications, rendered both the Sheriff's election and all Fourth District County Commission elections incurably uncertain. As a result, all contested elections were voided, and the respective offices declared vacant, with costs assigned to the Robertson County Election Commission.

election lawvoter irregularitiesabsentee votingelection fraud opportunityjudicial review of electionscounty government electionssheriff electionTennessee Supreme Courtstatutory violationsincurable uncertainty
References
12
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 6,802 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