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. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. 01-04-01157-CV, 01-04-01128-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Jackson

Justice Terry Jennings concurs with the court's decision to affirm the trial court's October 4, 2004 judgment in appellate cause number 01-04-01157-CV. The opinion highlights that a judgment is void if the court lacks jurisdiction to enter it, referencing established Texas law. Specifically, the July 16, 2006 judgment was deemed void due to appellee Edward Jackson's failure to provide prior notice to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, as mandated by section 410.258(a) of the Texas Labor Code. Such non-compliance with section 410.258 renders a judgment void and does not divest the trial court of plenary power. Consequently, Justice Jennings also recommends denying Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Petition For Writ of Mandamus, filed under cause number 01-04-01128-CV.

Workers' Compensation LawJurisdictionVoid JudgmentsStatutory NoticeAppellate ProcedureMandamusTexas Labor CodeJudicial ReviewPlenary PowerAdministrative Decisions
References
2
Case No. 03-05-00413-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2007

Armando Sanchez, M.D. v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and Donald W. Patrick, M.D.

This disciplinary action was brought by the Commission for Lawyer Discipline against Raul Garcia, a Texas-licensed attorney, for violations of rules 5.04(a), 5.04(b), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. The district court granted summary judgment for the Commission as to rules 5.04(a), 5.05(b), and 7.01(a), and for Garcia as to rule 5.04(b). Garcia appealed the judgment. At relevant times, Garcia was employed by Cristo Vive, a nonprofit organization that provided immigration-related legal matters. It is undisputed that Cristo Vive charged fees for these legal services and that Cristo Vive has never succeeded in obtaining the required recognition or accreditation.

Attorney DisciplineUnauthorized Practice of LawFee SplittingProfessional Conduct RulesTrade Name ViolationLawyer EmploymentNon-profit OrganizationImmigration Legal ServicesSummary JudgmentTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
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. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. 03-533
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Silica Products Liability Litigation

This order addresses issues within a multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning silicosis claims. For the case of Alexander v. Air Liquide America Corp. (S.D. Tex. Cause No. 03-533), involving 100 plaintiffs and 41 defendants, the court grants defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony and diagnoses of Dr. Harron and Dr. Levy. The court found their methodologies for diagnosing silicosis unreliable due to inadequate occupational histories and a failure to properly rule out other conditions. Additionally, the court grants motions for sanctions against the law firm O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, citing their unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of proceedings through the submission of unreliable diagnoses. The firm is ordered to cover Alexander's proportionate share of the defendants' costs for the Daubert hearings. Plaintiffs in Alexander are also instructed to amend jurisdictional allegations regarding American Optical's principal place of business.

SilicosisMultidistrict LitigationExpert TestimonyDaubert ChallengeSanctionsFraudulent DiagnosisSubject-Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionImproper JoinderRule 702
References
14
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Case No. 03-04-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

Rosemarie Satterfield, as Representative of the Estate of Jerrold Braley v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Individually and as Successor to Mundet Cork Corporation

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment concerning the constitutionality of a state statute on asbestos-related successor liability. Appellant Rosemarie Satterfield, representing the Estate of Jerrold Braley, sought damages for asbestos exposure against appellee Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. The district court had granted summary judgment to Crown Cork based on a newly enacted statute limiting successor asbestos liabilities, which was applied retroactively. The Court of Appeals found that the statute violated Article I, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution by retroactively destroying vested common law tort claims without providing a grace period. The court concluded that an accrued and pending common law cause of action is a vested right, which the Legislature cannot eliminate in this manner. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Asbestos litigationSuccessor liabilityRetroactive lawsVested rightsTexas ConstitutionPolice powerSummary judgmentConstitutional lawCommon law tortMesothelioma
References
135
Case No. 03-04-00261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

Local Neon Company, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Local Neon Company, Inc. initiated a tax protest lawsuit challenging the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas's assessment of sales and use tax from 1988 to 1995, arguing a lack of sufficient nexus to require tax collection and that their protest letter met statutory requirements. The district court dismissed the case due to a plea to the jurisdiction, finding Local Neon's protest letter did not 'state fully and in detail each reason for recovering the payment.' The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the tax protest suit and declaratory judgment claims for a refund, agreeing that the protest letter was insufficient. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the dismissal of Local Neon's claims seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of the tax code statutes and administrative rules, finding these were not redundant to tax code remedies and should be heard.

Tax LawSales and Use TaxTax Protest SuitDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseAdministrative LawJurisdiction
References
61
Case No. 03-04-00253-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Orthopaedic Ass'n v. Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners

The Texas State Board of Podiatric Medical Examiners (the "Board") promulgated a rule defining "foot" to include portions of the ankle and soft tissues extending into the leg. The Texas Orthopaedic Association, Texas Medical Association, and Andrew M. Kant, M.D. (appellants) challenged this rule, arguing it impermissibly expanded the scope of podiatry. The district court upheld the rule, but the appellate court reversed its judgment. The appellate court concluded that the Board exceeded its authority because the rule's definition authorized podiatrists to treat body parts outside the traditional scope of podiatry, such as nerves and veins along the leg, constituting unauthorized medical practice. The court rejected arguments regarding legislative acceptance and the rule's reasonableness, finding it inconsistent with existing statutes.

PodiatryScope of PracticeAdministrative RuleStatutory InterpretationMedical Practice ActAnkle TreatmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawMedical Licensing
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 1,687 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