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. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Case No. 12-1047
Regular Panel Decision

Amos v. McNairy County

Plaintiff Serfin Amos, a black male and former correctional officer, sued McNairy County, Tennessee, and its Sheriff's Department for alleged violations of Title VII, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Amos claimed race discrimination related to wage disparity, demotion to jailer, probation, and failure to promote, as well as retaliation for filing an EEOC charge and whistleblowing under the TPPA. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all race discrimination claims, finding insufficient evidence to support these assertions. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the County's stated reasons for Amos's termination. The TPPA claim was also dismissed due to failure to establish a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Human Rights ActTennessee Public Protection ActRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationWrongful TerminationFailure to PromoteWage Disparity
References
44
Case No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee

This case examines the intersection of the rule governing voluntary dismissal of civil actions (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01) and the statutory scheme of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Robert E. Lee Flade filed suit against the City of Shelbyville, Stephanie Isaacs, and the Bedford County Listening Project (BCLP) over alleged disparaging remarks on social media. Isaacs and BCLP filed motions to dismiss and petitions under the TPPA. Before a hearing, Flade voluntarily nonsuited his complaint, leading to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which prompted the defendants to seek adjudication of their TPPA petitions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the mere filing of a TPPA petition does not limit a plaintiff's right to voluntary nonsuit, create a vested right for adjudication, or qualify as a counterclaim under Rule 41.01(1).

Voluntary NonsuitTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil Procedure Rule 41.01Vested Rights ExceptionCounterclaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional RightsFree Speech
References
59
Case No. M2014-02450-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Kenneth D. Hardy v. Tennessee State University

Kenneth D. Hardy, a former state university police officer, sued Tennessee State University and other entities, alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under various acts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment on the sex discrimination and Tennessee Public Protection Act claims. However, it reversed summary judgment on specific retaliation claims related to a transfer and tardiness warnings, and also on the hostile work environment claim concerning numerous write-ups. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these specific claims, while constructive discharge was affirmed.

Employment LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentSex DiscriminationTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Human Rights ActTitle VIIAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Treadaway v. Big Red Powersports, LLC

Plaintiff Ursula Treadaway sued her former employer, Big Red Powersports, LLC, after her employment ended due to concerns about carbon monoxide (CO) exposure during her pregnancy. Treadaway went on leave following her OB/GYN specialist's recommendation to not work until the CO problem was corrected due to dangers to her unborn child. She alleged she attempted to notify her employer and submit medical documentation but was rebuffed, and eventually terminated. Treadaway filed suit alleging violations of the FMLA, Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), common law retaliation for 'whistleblowing,' and the Tennessee Maternity and Adoption Care Leave Act (TMLA). The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the FMLA claim, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the TMLA claim (due to employer size) and the TPPA/whistleblowing claims (due to lack of public purpose and insufficient evidence of illegal activity).

FMLA ClaimTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Maternity and Adoption Care Leave ActMotion for Summary JudgmentCarbon Monoxide ExposurePregnancy LeaveRetaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionWorkplace Safety ConcernsEmployer Responsibility
References
20
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foust v. Metropolitan Security Services, Inc.

Plaintiff C. Gene Foust filed a civil action against Metropolitan Security Services, Inc., doing business as Walden Security, alleging age-based discrimination and retaliation. Foust claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), stemming from his suspension, a final written warning, and his eventual termination. Walden moved for summary judgment, contending that Foust failed to establish a prima facie case for his discrimination and retaliation claims and could not demonstrate pretext. The court analyzed Foust's claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework, finding that most of his proposed comparators were not similarly situated. Ultimately, the court granted Walden's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Foust's claims after concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence for age discrimination (except for termination), that the final warning was not an adverse action, and that his retaliation claims lacked protected activity or a causal link.

Age DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscrimination LawADEATHRATPPADisparate TreatmentPretext (Law)
References
69
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. M2009-00915-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2010

John Doe v. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., as Attorney General for State of Tennessee

This case addresses John Doe's constitutional challenge against the retroactive application of the Tennessee Sexual Offender Registration, Verification, and Tracking Act of 2004. Doe, convicted of indecent exposure in 2001, was subsequently classified as a sexual offender under the 2004 Act, leading to mandatory registration and employment restrictions. The trial court upheld the Act's constitutionality, viewing it as a non-punitive regulatory framework. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, ruling that both the registration requirements and the employment restraints, as applied to Doe, were not punitive and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the Tennessee Constitution. The court emphasized the Act's purpose in promoting public safety.

Declaratory JudgmentRetroactive ApplicationSexual Offender RegistrationEx Post Facto LawConstitutional LawEmployment RestrictionsPublic SafetyIndecent ExposureNon-Punitive Regulatory SchemeTennessee Constitution
References
49
Case No. M2010-01955-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2011

State of Tennessee, by and through Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter for the State of Tennessee v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company

This case involves the State of Tennessee suing NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company, a foreign tobacco product manufacturer, for failing to make required escrow deposits under the Tobacco Escrow Fund Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Sumatra due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, concluding that Sumatra had sufficient minimum contacts with the state through its intentional nationwide distribution system. The court found that Sumatra purposefully availed itself of the Tennessee market and that exercising personal jurisdiction was fair and reasonable. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Escrow Fund Act against Sumatra's affirmative defenses, remanding the case for the calculation of escrow funds owed by Sumatra.

Personal JurisdictionTobacco Escrow Fund ActMinimum ContactsStream of CommerceForeign CorporationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Statutes
References
133
Showing 1-10 of 11,290 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