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
Nov 08, 2006

Texas Ass'n of School Boards Risk Management Fund v. Benavides Independent School District

The Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims brought by the Benavides Independent School District. The School District had sued for breach of contract, torts (DTPA, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duties, negligence, gross negligence), and a declaratory action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for contractual claims, citing a waiver of immunity under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as supported by Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the tort claims, ruling that governmental immunity from suit had not been waived for these claims, thereby dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that governmental immunity exists between political subdivisions unless expressly waived.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District
References
12
Case No. Index No. 116319/02; Index No. 401735/03; Index No. 116290/02; Index No. 121701/02; Index No. 103630/03
Regular Panel Decision

Daly v. Port Authority

This opinion consolidates 26 tort actions arising from the clearance of the World Trade Center site, primarily brought by demolition workers and a police officer alleging Labor Law violations. Defendants, including the City of New York and the Port Authority, asserted immunity under the New York State Defense Emergency Act (SDEA) and the Natural Disaster and Man-Made Disaster Preparedness Law. The court determined that SDEA immunity applied to injuries sustained up to September 29, 2001, the date the search for survivors concluded, considering this period as "essential debris clearance" under civil defense. Consequently, four specific actions (Feal, Hickey, Luge, Murphy) were dismissed. The court further analyzed immunity under Executive Law § 25 (5), concluding it grants immunity to the City for discretionary functions but does not exempt it from mandatory Labor Law duties.

World Trade CenterSeptember 11 AttacksTort ActionsStatutory ImmunityState Defense Emergency ActCivil DefenseLabor Law ViolationsWorksite AccidentsDebris ClearanceDiscretionary Function Immunity
References
42
Case No. 06-04-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2004

in Re: Randy E. Williams

Seven cities sued Texarkana, d/b/a Texarkana Water Utilities, for contract and tort claims related to water supply. Texarkana invoked governmental immunity, which the trial court denied. The appellate court distinguished between governmental and proprietary functions for immunity. It held that governmental immunity bars tort claims arising from water supply, which is a governmental function under the Texas Tort Claims Act. However, the court found that Texarkana's governmental immunity from suit was waived for contract claims due to the "plead and be impleaded" language in the Texas Local Government Code Section 51.075, interpreting it synonymously with "sue and be sued" based on Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision on contract claims and reversed and dismissed the tort claims.

Governmental ImmunityContract LawTort ClaimsMunicipal LiabilityWaiver of ImmunityWater UtilitiesPolitical SubdivisionsStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
48
Case No. 11-20-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Justin Schrader v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Justin Schrader sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for injuries sustained during his arrest, alleging negligent application of handcuffs and a 'leg sweep' by Trooper Jerry Hale. DPS moved to dismiss the suit, citing sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The trial court granted the dismissal. On appeal, Schrader argued that the TTCA's waiver of immunity applied and that the intentional tort exclusion did not, as Trooper Hale did not intend to injure him. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the gravamen of Schrader's complaint was excessive force—a battery, an intentional tort—which falls under the TTCA's intentional tort exclusion, thus preserving DPS's sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExclusionBatteryExcessive ForcePolice MisconductPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityInterlocutory Appeal
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

City of Texarkana v. Cities of New Boston

Seven cities initiated a lawsuit against the City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, asserting both contract and tort claims stemming from their water supply relationship. Texarkana invoked governmental immunity, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed that governmental immunity does not shield Texarkana from contract claims, citing a legislative waiver derived from the "plead and be impleaded" language in the Texas Local Government Code. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the tort claims, ruling that these claims are barred by governmental immunity because providing water services falls under Texarkana's governmental functions as defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act. Consequently, the contract claims were left pending, and the tort claims were dismissed.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipalitiesContract LawTort LawWaiver of ImmunityStatutory InterpretationTexas Local Government CodeWater UtilitiesPolitical SubdivisionsHome-Rule Municipalities
References
49
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the City of Watauga v. Russell Gordon

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an arrestee's lawsuit against a city for injuries caused by police officers' use of handcuffs states a battery or negligence claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Russell Gordon sued the City of Watauga, alleging negligent use of property. The City asserted governmental immunity under the intentional-tort exception. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the immunity plea, concluding it was a negligence claim. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that claims of excessive force during a lawful arrest, even when an injury is unintended, arise out of a battery (an intentional tort), for which governmental immunity has not been waived. Consequently, the case was dismissed.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional TortBatteryNegligenceExcessive ForceArrestHandcuffsSovereign ImmunityCivil Procedure
References
36
Case No. 02-19-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Tarrant County, Texas v. Tony Lee Green

Tony Lee Green sued Tarrant County, Texas, for negligence after a sheriff's deputy pointed a laser temperature gun at his eye in jail, invoking the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) but denying intentional tort. Tarrant County sought dismissal, claiming immunity from intentional torts and arguing Green's claim was effectively a battery. The trial court denied this plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether the intentional pointing of the laser, even without intent to injure, constituted a battery, which would bypass the TTCA's immunity waiver. The court concluded that Green's claim was indeed an intentional tort (battery), thus reversing the trial court's decision and dismissing the case.

NegligenceIntentional TortTexas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityBatteryLaser Gun InjuryExcessive ForcePlea to the JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 06-04-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2004

City of Texarkana, Texas, D/B/A Texarkana Water Utilities v. Cities of New Boston, Hooks, DeKalb, Wake Village, Maud, Avery, and Annona, Texas

The City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, appealed a trial court's decision regarding governmental immunity in a lawsuit brought by seven other cities. These cities had sued Texarkana for various contract and tort claims related to water supply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that governmental immunity does not bar the contract claims, allowing them to proceed. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision on the tort claims, holding that governmental immunity does apply to and bars these claims, leading to their dismissal. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code, concluding that the phrase 'plead and be impleaded' acts as an unambiguous legislative waiver of immunity from suit for contract claims for home-rule municipalities.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityContract LawTort LawMunicipal LawWater UtilitiesTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWaiver of Immunity
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Markida Renee Mitchell

Markida Renee Mitchell filed suit against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, alleging she was unlawfully fired for filing a workers' compensation claim. The Department sought to dismiss the suit based on sovereign immunity, arguing the Legislature had not waived immunity for such claims or the damages sought. The trial court denied the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court of Texas's decision in Kerrville State Hospital v. Fernandez. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that Fernandez remains controlling precedent, which established a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for anti-retaliation claims against state agencies. The court further clarified that the State Application Act's reference to the Tort Claims Act only incorporates damage caps, not other jurisdictional limitations or bars on intentional torts, concluding that any immunity regarding remedies is from liability, not suit.

Sovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation RetaliationAnti-Retaliation LawPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealState Application ActTort Claims ActWaiver of ImmunityStatutory InterpretationStare Decisis
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,854 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