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. 01-19-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2020

Dee Hobbs, Williamson County Attorney v. Dan A. Gattis, Williamson County Judge Terry Cook, Cynthia Long, Valerie Covey, and Larry Madsen, County Commissioners

Dee Hobbs, in his official capacity as the Williamson County Attorney, appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction. Hobbs had sued the Williamson County Judge and Commissioners, challenging policies that restricted the salary he could offer new or promoted employees, arguing these policies exceeded the Commissioners Court's authority. The trial court dismissed the case, finding no justiciable controversy and that Hobbs lacked standing. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that Hobbs's pleading did not demonstrate a live controversy or sufficient standing, and did not invoke the district court's supervisory jurisdiction over the Commissioners Court.

Plea to the JurisdictionStandingJusticiable ControversyDeclaratory JudgmentSupervisory JurisdictionWilliamson CountyCommissioners CourtCounty AttorneyEmployee SalariesBudgetary Discretion
References
37
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. Williamson County Board of Education

This case concerns the dismissal of Freeman M. Cooper, a principal, by the Williamson County Board of Education under the Teacher Tenure Act. The Chancery Court's review of the dismissal was found to be procedurally flawed by the Supreme Court, as it improperly limited the scope of review. The Supreme Court clarified that a de novo hearing, as mandated by the Act, requires a complete redetermination of facts and law without deference to the administrative board's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially vacated the lower court's judgment regarding Cooper's dismissal and remanded the case for a new de novo hearing, while affirming other aspects of the judgment concerning the Open Meetings Act and board bias allegations.

Teacher Tenure ActAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewDe Novo HearingSchool Board DismissalProcedural DefectsTennessee LawAppellate ProcedureBurden of ProofOpen Meetings Act
References
21
Case No. M2018-01878-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Melanie Lemon v. Williamson County Schools

Melanie Lemon, a tenured teacher, resigned her position and filed a wrongful termination claim against Williamson County Schools and individual school officials, alleging constructive discharge under the Teacher Tenure Act. The Supreme Court of Tennessee considered whether the doctrine of constructive discharge is applicable to wrongful termination claims under the Act. The Court determined that constructive discharge is inconsistent with the Act's comprehensive procedural framework designed for teacher dismissals. Consequently, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to apply the doctrine and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Lemon's wrongful termination claims. Additionally, the Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of Lemon's tort claims, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against both the school system and the individual officials, citing governmental immunity and the conduct not meeting the high legal standard for outrageousness.

Teacher Tenure ActConstructive DischargeWrongful TerminationGovernmental ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceSchool OfficialsEmployment LawAdministrative RemediesJudicial Review
References
33
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal District

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the Legislature constitutionally defined ecological laboratories as property promoting "farm and ranch purposes" for productive capacity taxation. Nootsie, Limited, owned land used as an ecological laboratory, which the Williamson County Appraisal District denied productive capacity taxation after initially granting it. This led to a lawsuit where the trial court found the provision constitutional, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Texas Tax Code § 23.51(1), including ecological laboratories, is constitutional. The Court reasoned that statutes are presumed constitutional and that "farm and ranch purposes" allows for broader interpretations that further the preservation of open-space land, affirming the Legislature's mandate.

TaxationProperty TaxConstitutional LawOpen-Space LandEcological LaboratoriesFarm and Ranch PurposesProductive Capacity TaxationStatutory InterpretationAppraisal DistrictsStanding (Legal)
References
24
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. 03-01-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

Carolyn Barnes, Individually and as Next Friend of William Zimmer Barnes and Charles Austin Lee Bednorz v. Calvin R. Sulak Lt. Wayne Lock Sgt. Ralph Fisher R.C. Nichols And Williamson County Sheriff's Department

Carolyn Barnes appealed a summary judgment related to her claims against the Williamson County Sheriff's Department and its employees following her arrest in 1997. She alleged violations of common-law, statutory, and constitutional provisions during her arrest and jailing. The court affirmed the take-nothing judgment against Barnes's claims, primarily due to her failure to timely file a summary-judgment response and present evidence. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees as sanctions against Barnes, concluding that there was no evidence her lawsuit was groundless, brought in bad faith, or to harass.

Summary JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTimelinessDiscovery DisputesSanctionsRule 13Qualified ImmunityNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentProcedural Issues
References
40
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. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 6,645 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