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. 04-25-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

John H. White, Jr., Individually and as Trustee of the Christopher C. White Trust, Matthew M. White Trust, and 1976B John H. White Trust F/B/O David Ryall White v. TCW Helotes Ranch LTD.

This memorandum opinion from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirms a temporary injunction granted against John H. White, Jr. The dispute involves an easement across White's property, which provides access to Tuleta White's parcel, owned by TCW Helotes Ranch Ltd. White blocked the easement, prompting TCW Helotes Ranch to seek injunctive relief, citing the critical need for access due to Tuleta's medical condition and the care requirements for her animals. The appellate court concluded that an alternative easement over a third party's land did not constitute a bona fide alternative route, thereby upholding the trial court's finding of probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. Consequently, the temporary injunction, preventing White from obstructing the easement, was affirmed.

Easement disputeTemporary injunctionReal propertyLand accessIrreparable injuryAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewProperty rightsFamily disputeTexas law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. White Plains Housing Authority

The petitioner challenged the White Plains Housing Authority's June 28, 1993 determination to terminate his employment as a maintenance worker through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, dismissing the proceeding on the merits with costs. The decision was based on a finding that substantial evidence supported all three charges against the petitioner, referencing precedents such as Matter of Lahey v Kelly and Matter of County of Suffolk v Newman.

CPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewEmployment TerminationMaintenance WorkerWhite Plains Housing AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative DeterminationPublic EmploymentDismissal on MeritsCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. 22-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2023

Scott & White Memorial Hospital D/B/A Baylor Scott & White McLane Children's Medical Center A/K/A Baylor Scott & White Health v. Dawn M. Thompson, R.N.

Dawn Thompson, a registered nurse, was terminated by Scott & White Memorial Hospital after reporting child abuse concerns to Child Protective Services (CPS). The hospital stated the termination was due to Thompson's third violation of their personal-conduct policy, specifically disclosing protected health information to a school nurse without authorization. Thompson sued, alleging retaliation in violation of Section 261.110(b) of the Texas Family Code, which protects professionals who report child abuse. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that this statute requires a "but-for" causation standard, meaning the adverse action would not have occurred without the protected conduct. The Court found that Scott & White conclusively proved that Thompson would have been terminated for the HIPAA violation regardless of her CPS report, thereby negating the causation element of her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Scott & White.

Texas Family CodeWhistleblower ActEmployment TerminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentBut-For CausationHIPAA ViolationChild Abuse ReportProtected ConductNurse Employment
References
14
Case No. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. 03-21-00429-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of Texas And Ken Paxton In His Official Capacity as Texas Attorney General v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton challenging a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the issuance of a temporary injunction. The core legal question is whether Governor Abbott, under the Texas Disaster Act, can issue an executive order (GA-38) that prohibits local governmental entities, such as Harris County, from implementing face-covering requirements. Harris County officials contend these mandates are vital for public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, concluding that the trial court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and did not err in granting the temporary injunction, as the Governor's actions were likely ultra vires.

Texas Disaster ActExecutive Order GA-38Face Covering MandatesCOVID-19 MitigationLocal Government AuthorityGubernatorial PowersUltra Vires ClaimTemporary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
32
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. 01-12-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2014

Lani K. White and Charles White v. DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd., F/K/A Deliverance-PAR Services, Ltd.

Lani K. White and Charles White appealed a summary judgment in favor of DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd. (Deliverance). The Whites sued Deliverance alleging negligence after a gas leak from an uncapped line, installed by Deliverance's contractor Patrick Rusk, caused an explosion in their home. Deliverance contended it was not vicariously liable as Rusk was an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment for Deliverance. On appeal, the Whites argued that Rusk's independent contractor agreement was modified by an agreement between Deliverance and MSS, and that extrinsic evidence showed Deliverance controlled Rusk's work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the summary-judgment evidence failed to raise a fact issue regarding Rusk's independent contractor status, applying the Limestone factors to determine the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary JudgmentIndependent Contractor StatusVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawRight to Control TestMaster-Servant RelationshipTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor Hous. Auth. v. Shorts

The Taylor Housing Authority (THA) appealed a temporary injunction and a denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning counterclaims from Taylor Sunset Housing Development (TSHD) and Mallard Run Housing Development (MRHD). THA initially sued TSHD, MRHD, and Steve A. Shorts over ownership and operational control of public housing projects, alleging fraudulent schemes. MRHD counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference, seeking damages and specific performance for property title. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction which prevented THA from interfering with TSHD and MRHD's operations, upholding the status quo. However, the court partially reversed the jurisdictional order, ruling that governmental immunity barred MRHD's claims for specific performance to convey title, while allowing counterclaims for monetary relief to proceed as potential offsets against THA's original monetary claims.

Governmental ImmunityTemporary InjunctionPlea to JurisdictionHousing AuthorityNonprofit CorporationCorporate GovernanceBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelTortious InterferenceSpecific Performance
References
34
Case No. 02A01-9803-CH-00064
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1999

White's Electric v. Lewis Constr.

This case involves a dispute between White's Electric, Heating, Air and Plumbing (subcontractor) and Lewis Construction Company (general contractor) and Frontier Insurance Company (surety) regarding a public housing renovation project. White's Plumbing sued for unpaid contract payments and damages for delays. The trial court initially awarded White's Plumbing damages for breach of contract and for disruption and delay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the breach of contract damages, finding that Lewis Construction breached the contract first. However, the court reversed the award for delay damages, determining that White's Plumbing failed to comply with the notice requirements for such claims outlined in the project manual, which was incorporated by reference into the subcontract. The case was also remanded to clarify the authenticity of the contractor's bond.

Construction LawSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Contractor LiabilitySurety BondBreach of ContractDelay DamagesContractual NoticeIncorporation by ReferencePublic Works ProjectAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,790 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