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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
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. 13-07-165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of Texas

The case involves Juan Angel Guerra, District Attorney of Willacy County, seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Migdalia Lopez for appointing Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate Guerra's alleged misconduct. Guerra argued the judge abused her discretion by not following removal procedures under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code, appointing an attorney pro tem without his consent, and not providing notice or a hearing. The court overruled most issues but conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, particularly concerning allegations of voter fraud in an election where Garza was Guerra's opponent. The court also denied motions for contempt and sanctions.

MandamusAttorney Pro TemJudicial DiscretionConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDue ProcessOfficial MisconductVoter FraudDisqualification of ProsecutorTexas Law
References
89
Case No. 15-25-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Delia Garza, in Her Official Capacity as Travis County Attorney; John Creuzot, in His Official Capacity as Dallas County Criminal District Attorney; And Brian Middleton, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of Fort Bend County (268th Judicial District)

This emergency motion seeks to stay the enforcement of new rules (1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ch. 56) adopted by the Attorney General, which impose onerous reporting requirements on district and county attorneys in large Texas counties. The trial court had temporarily enjoined these rules, but the Attorney General's appeal automatically superseded the injunction. Appellees argue the rules are invalid due to lack of statutory authority, violation of separation of powers, and improper procedure. They also contend that complying with the rules would cause irreparable harm by diverting significant resources and forcing the disclosure of confidential and privileged information, while the Attorney General would suffer no prejudice from a stay. They seek a temporary order from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to preserve the status quo pending appeal.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefStay of EnforcementAdministrative RulesAttorney General AuthoritySeparation of PowersProsecutorial DiscretionConfidential InformationUnfunded MandateFiscal Impact
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbott v. North East Independent School District

The case examines whether a school principal's memorandum, detailing complaints about a teacher and directing corrective action, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. North East Independent School District (NEISD) asserted confidentiality and withheld the document under the Texas Public Information Act. The Attorney General disagreed, prompting NEISD and Dr. Richard A. Middleton to file suit in Travis County, seeking a declaration of confidentiality. The district court granted summary judgment for NEISD, and this decision was appealed by the Attorney General. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the memorandum and statutory interpretation, concluding that the document did evaluate the teacher's performance by incorporating the principal's judgment, corrective directives, and provisions for further review. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's summary judgment, upholding the memorandum's confidential status and exemption from disclosure.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialityTexas Education CodeGovernment CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSchool AdministrationTeacher Reprimand
References
18
Case No. 23-0679
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

Fort Bend Independent School District v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the balance between public access to government information and the privacy rights of government employees, specifically concerning information stored on their private cell phones used for official business. Fort Bend Independent School District sought a ruling on the disclosure of phone records under the Texas Public Information Act, arguing for privacy protections. The Attorney General's office ruled that business-related information is subject to the Act, and the court of appeals affirmed. Justice Young concurred in denying the motion for rehearing, emphasizing that the request and ruling already account for redaction of personal and confidential information, thus mitigating immediate privacy threats in this specific instance. The opinion also questions the practice of requiring employees to use personal devices for official business without providing adequate equipment.

Public Information ActGovernment TransparencyEmployee PrivacyCell Phone RecordsFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionMotion for RehearingConcurring OpinionGovernment EmployeesPersonal Devices
References
11
Case No. 03-18-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

Leander Independent School District v. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Leander Independent School District (LISD) appealed a district court's judgment compelling the disclosure of its "Complaints Document" to a news reporter under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). LISD argued the document was protected by exceptions including deliberative process, work product, constitutional and common law privacy, and litigation anticipation. The appellate court, reviewing de novo, determined the document contained purely factual information, not protected by deliberative process or work product privileges. It also found LISD failed to establish constitutional or common law privacy rights applied, or that litigation was reasonably anticipated. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the requirement for LISD to release the information.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestGovernment TransparencyDeliberative Process PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeConstitutional PrivacyCommon Law PrivacyLitigation AnticipationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
69
Case No. 05-18-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2018

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

The appellant, Darlene C. Balistreri-Amrhein, filed a second docket statement in her appeal (No. 05-18-00567-CV) to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas, from an original proceeding in Collin County. She appeals against multiple parties, including attorneys, law firms, banks, and judges, alleging legal malpractice, fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and denial of due process and constitutional rights. The appellant claims the lower court lacked proper jurisdiction, made unlawful orders, and discriminated against her due to age, disabilities, and pro se litigant status. She specifically contests a "vexatious litigant" order, stating it is unsupported and unlawful, and seeks reversal of all adverse orders and costs. The appellant also highlights her severe medical conditions, including scheduled surgeries, and requests a medical stay or inactive docket status due to her incapacitation, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

AppealCivil ProcedureDue ProcessJudicial MisconductFraud on CourtVexatious LitigantMedical StayDisability RightsJurisdictionLegal Malpractice
References
16
Case No. 03-05-00018-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2009

Burnet Central Appraisal District v. Louis G. Millmeyer and Sharon Millmeyer

This ad valorem tax case involves the Burnet Central Appraisal District appealing a district court judgment that reduced the appraised value of property belonging to Louis G. and Sharon Millmeyer and awarded them attorneys’ fees. The Appraisal District challenged the attorneys' fee award, the district court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the property's lowered valuation. The appellate court modified the judgment to reduce the attorneys’ fees, agreeing that the award exceeded statutory limits. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the property valuation and found no reversible harm from the lack of findings of fact.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationAttorneys' FeesStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeSufficiency of EvidenceFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 9,371 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