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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bass v. Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission

The Waller County Sub-Regional Planning Commission challenged the court's jurisdiction over an appeal filed by James Bass, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Transportation. The appeal concerned interlocutory orders from a district court, which included granting partial summary judgment to the Planning Commission and deferring a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction by the Executive Director. The Executive Director argued for jurisdiction under Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, asserting an implicit denial of his jurisdictional challenges. However, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the district court's explicit deferral of the jurisdictional ruling contradicted any implied denial, or alternatively, effectively vacated any such implied ruling. Consequently, the Planning Commission's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

interlocutory appealsubject-matter jurisdictiongovernmental immunityplea to the jurisdictionpartial summary judgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeLocal Government Codemandamus reliefinjunctive reliefultra vires claims
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Texas Department of Insurance

Texas Mutual Insurance Company appealed a district court's decision that granted a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. The core issues were whether the Division had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning employers liability insurance coverage periods and if Texas Mutual's challenge to Division rule 110.1 was ripe for adjudication. The appellate court found that the Division does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over employers liability coverage disputes, especially when no workers' compensation benefits claim is pending. Furthermore, the court determined that Texas Mutual's challenge to rule 110.1 was indeed ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionEmployers Liability InsuranceWorkers' CompensationDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedure ActRule ChallengeRipenessCoverage DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkes v. Bennett

The petitioner, a psychiatric social worker, had her probationary appointment with the State Office of Mental Health (OMH) terminated. She appealed to the State Civil Service Commission (CSC), alleging OMH failed to comply with 4 NYCRR 4.5 (a) (5) (in) regarding observation and advisement of her status. CSC declined jurisdiction, determining OMH had substantially complied. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to declare CSC's declination of jurisdiction arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to compel CSC to exercise jurisdiction and that CSC's interpretation of its own regulations was entitled to deference.

Probationary employmentTermination appealCivil Service CommissionJurisdiction declinationCPLR Article 78Administrative lawAgency interpretationJudicial reviewProcedural defectsState Office of Mental Health
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCarver v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania

This workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court centered on two critical issues: the constitutionality of a state statute granting jurisdiction to the General Sessions Court for Warren County in workers' compensation matters, and the vocational disability award for the claimant. The defendants, Carrier Corporation and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, challenged the jurisdiction of the General Sessions Court for Warren County, arguing that Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-5004(c) violated article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding a rational basis for the statute and thus upholding the lower court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award of 88.2% permanent partial disability to the claimant, Betty Sue McCarver, whose bilateral shoulder injuries from her employment with Carrier Corporation led to a finding of significant vocational disability supported by medical and vocational expert testimony.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionConstitutional LawTennessee Constitution Article XI Section 8General Sessions CourtWarren CountySubject Matter JurisdictionDisability AwardShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff
References
17
Case No. 03-05-00776-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2006

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, holds exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning employers' liability insurance coverage periods and if a challenge to a Division rule was ripe for adjudication. The case originated from a wrongful death claim against AJ Commercial, whose insurance carrier, Texas Mutual, sought a declaratory judgment that the employers' liability policy had expired. The district court had granted the Division's plea to the jurisdiction, finding exclusive jurisdiction and lack of ripeness for the rule challenge. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the Division does not have exclusive jurisdiction over employers' liability coverage disputes when no worker's compensation benefits claim is pending and that the rule challenge was indeed ripe, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer Liability InsuranceExclusive JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. 03-16-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMV-AL Ventures, LLC// Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity// Cross-Appellee, LMV-AL Ventures, LLC

This case is not as complicated as Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Brief would suggest. On the merits, this case is about the meaning of "usable floor space" under 40 TAC § 92.62(m)(1)(B) and whether DADS ignored the plain meaning of those three words in calculating such space at Plaintiff's assisted living facility. It is also about the validity of DADS’ “secret rule,” unpublished and not promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which DADS uses to justify omitting admittedly “usable” floor space. On jurisdictional issues, this case is also not as complicated as DADS’ Brief suggests. Contrary to DADS’ contentions, LMV is challenging both the applicability of Rule 92.62(m)(1)(B) and the validity and applicability of DADS’ “secret” measuring rule. “Applicability” under APA section 2001.038 and caselaw includes the application of the rule to the facts at hand. Further, the validity of DADS’ “secret” rule is challenged, because the rule was not promulgated pursuant to APA requirements and not published. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction under APA section 2001.038. LMV has standing to challenge DADS’ action because it imposes a regulatory burden and impedes LMV’s business opportunities. Under the APA section 2001.038 framework and relevant caselaw, LMV’s lawsuit is ripe and seeks more than an advisory opinion. In addition, there is subject matter jurisdiction for the ultra vires claims under the UDJA and subject matter jurisdiction for the constitutional due process claims (which DADS failed to brief). DADS’ plea to the jurisdiction and arguments in its brief are smoke and mirrors, designed to divert attention from DADS’ failure to (1) apply the indisputable plain language of its own rules and (2) follow APA requirements for promulgating otherwise “secret” and invalid rules.

Administrative lawAgency rulemakingUsable floor spaceAssisted living facilityRegulatory burdenBusiness opportunitiesSovereign immunityUltra viresDue processAPA
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rylander v. Caldwell

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit against the Comptroller, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries. Caldwell alleged that the varying collection of these costs across counties violated her rights under the due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and other jurisdictional arguments, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Caldwell's suit, seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against the Comptroller's actions, fell within an exception to sovereign immunity and presented a justiciable controversy. The court also clarified that Caldwell was not limited to remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.

Constitutional LawSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefTexas Government CodeCourt CostsStatutory InterpretationDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 8,952 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