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
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. 03-08-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2008

Henry Chavez v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Henry Chavez, an inmate appearing pro se, appealed the dismissal of his mandamus suit against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Chavez sought release to mandatory supervision, arguing that the legislative exclusion for aggravated sexual assault convictions violated his constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed his suit as frivolous under chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code. On appeal, Chavez argued due process violations due to lack of notice for the dismissal hearing, denial of a recorded hearing, and refusal to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion as chapter 14 does not mandate these procedural safeguards for inmate claims.

Inmate litigationPro se appealDismissal of suitFrivolous claimsDue process rightsMandamus petitionMandatory supervisionChapter 14 Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of discretion standardNotice of hearing
References
15
Case No. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sims v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ETC.

This case challenges the constitutionality of several chapters (11, 14, 15, 17, 34) of Title 2, Texas Family Code, concerning child abuse reporting, emergency seizure of children, and termination of parental rights. The plaintiffs, the Sims family, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the actions of the Harris County Child Welfare Unit. A three-judge district court was convened and found that abstention from federal intervention was not warranted due to the nature of the state action and the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge, which involved procedural irregularities and a lack of fair opportunity for hearing in state court. The court declared multiple sections of the Texas Family Code unconstitutional, particularly those related to notice, hearings, standard of proof, and appointment of counsel, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. However, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for monetary damages.

Child AbuseFamily LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessAbstention DoctrineInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefParental RightsChild WelfareState Intervention
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The case involves Brian Edward Simons, an incarcerated individual who sued TDCJ for injuries. The central legal question is whether TDCJ received "actual notice" of Simons's claim, a requirement under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court considered the recent amendment to Government Code section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites to suit jurisdictional, and applied it retroactively. Analyzing the "subjective awareness" standard for actual notice, the court found that TDCJ's internal investigation, which concluded Simons was at fault, and communications from Simons's legal assistant, did not demonstrate TDCJ had subjective awareness that its own fault contributed to Simons's injury. Consequently, the court held that TDCJ lacked actual notice, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed Simons's claim for want of jurisdiction.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticeSubjective AwarenessGovernmental Unit ImmunityJurisdictional PrerequisitesRetroactive Application of StatuteProcedural LawSummary Judgment MotionPlea to Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 09-06-039 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2006

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Brian Edward Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a case brought by Brian Edward Simons for injuries sustained during incarceration. The central legal question involved whether TDCJ had "actual notice" of Simons's claim, specifically subjective awareness of its fault, under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The majority opinion retroactively applied a 2005 amendment to the Government Code, Section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites jurisdictional. The court concluded that TDCJ did not have actual notice and reversed the trial court's order, dismissing Simons's claim for lack of jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion challenged the retroactive application of the statute and argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding actual notice.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticePlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationJurisdictional RequirementsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 03-00-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas v. Marcie Caldwell Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries in participating statutory county courts. Caldwell alleged this varying cost violated due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Rylander, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied the Comptroller's plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Caldwell's suit was not barred by sovereign immunity as it challenged a state official's actions under an allegedly unconstitutional law, and that exclusive remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. The court also found a justiciable controversy existed, as the Comptroller enforces the challenged statute.

Sovereign ImmunityJurisdictionConstitutional LawGovernment CodeCourt CostsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefClass ActionDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
20
Case No. 03-99-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Clayton Miller, D/B/A Trucks, Etc. v. Bell County, Texas, and Dan Smith, Sheriff of Bell County, Texas

Clayton Miller, operating as Trucks, Etc., sued Bell County, Texas, and Sheriff Dan Smith for damages. Miller claimed agents of the Bell County Sheriff's Department negligently released a truck he held title to, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating that Miller failed to establish legislative permission to sue for damages, and merely alleging a violation of law does not waive sovereign immunity for a tort claim seeking damages.

Sovereign ImmunityOfficial ImmunitySummary JudgmentTort ClaimNegligenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewGovernmental ImmunityDamages Claim
References
15
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 13,178 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