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. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Confer

Patricia Confer, widow of Dr. Ronald Confer, sought workers' compensation death benefits after Dr. Confer died in a car accident. She alleged he was in the course and scope of his employment, intending to purchase computer supplies for his employer, Texas Educational Foundation, before heading home. After an initial favorable ruling was reversed by an appeals panel, Mrs. Confer successfully sued in district court, where a jury found in her favor. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the verdict, citing insufficient evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and an improper attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "dual purpose rule" to uphold the jury's finding that Dr. Confer was on a business errand at the time of the accident and finding no reversible errors in the trial court's other rulings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentDual Purpose RuleAutomobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1995

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Fratto Curbing Co.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund seeking a default judgment against Fratto Curbing Co., Inc. for delinquent pension fund contributions. Fratto failed to respond to the complaint after being served, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk of the Court. The court granted the Teamsters' motion for default judgment, finding Fratto liable for delinquent contributions, audit fees, interest, and attorney's fees. The decision also clarified the calculation of liquidated damages under ERISA, stating that the fund is entitled to the greater of double interest or the plan's liquidated damages, but not both, thus reducing the total award. The final judgment was entered against Fratto in the amount of $5,687.23, along with post-judgment interest.

ERISAPension ContributionsDefault JudgmentDelinquent PaymentsCollective BargainingEmployee BenefitsLiquidated Damages CalculationAttorney's FeesFederal CourtContractual Obligations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,367 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