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. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

David Sloan Federal Public Defender's Office, Lubbock, Texas Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety Sheriff Cliff Harris, Pecos County Pecos County Sheriff's Department v. John Alan Conroy

Steven C. McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), appealed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by John Alan Conroy. Conroy, a pro se inmate, sought electronic recordings of an interrogation related to a federal child pornography conviction and $20,000,000 in damages for alleged constitutional rights violations under the Texas Constitution. McCraw argued sovereign immunity barred Conroy's claims for monetary damages. The Court of Appeals construed Conroy's petition as a suit for a writ of mandamus under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) regarding the disclosure of the recordings, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the denial of McCraw's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the mandamus action but modified the order to dismiss Conroy's claim for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPublic Information ActMandamusDue ProcessTrial Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodePro Se LitigantDeclaratory Judgment
References
13
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. 03-04-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Kenneth Garrett v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Thomas A. Davis, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Travis County and Patricia Michele Padron, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

Kenneth Garrett, convicted of indecent exposure, was classified as a "high-risk" sex offender, triggering public notification requirements. Garrett sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), its director Thomas A. Davis, Travis County, and community supervision officer Patricia Michele Padron, alleging improper classification and false public disclosures about a "second conviction." The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants regarding the "high-risk" classification, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on his criminal conviction and privacy rights claims. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning Garrett's common-law tort claims (defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress) against Davis in his individual capacity, finding Davis failed to establish statutory immunity against claims for misstating Garrett's conviction history.

Sex Offender RegistrationHigh-Risk ClassificationIndecent ExposureCivil RightsDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentCollateral AttackStatutory ImmunityQualified Immunity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fowinkle v. Southern Railway Co.

This case addresses whether railroad employees fall under the coverage of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972 (OSHA). The appellants, the Commissioners of Public Health and Labor, attempted to inspect Southern Railway's Chattanooga Diesel Shop following a complaint, but were denied entry by the manager, who cited an exemption under state law. This prompted a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. The Chancellor ruled that railroad employees were not covered by OSHA, a decision upheld by the higher court. The court's reasoning was based on a state statute that exempts railroad employees whose safety and health are 'subject to protection' under federal acts, irrespective of whether specific federal regulations have been promulgated, acknowledging the legislature's intent to avoid redundant state oversight where federal law has a preemptive scope in railroad safety.

OSHARailroad SafetyState LawFederal LawPreemptionStatutory InterpretationExemptionOccupational HealthSafety RegulationsTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 11-20-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Justin Schrader v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Justin Schrader sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for injuries sustained during his arrest, alleging negligent application of handcuffs and a 'leg sweep' by Trooper Jerry Hale. DPS moved to dismiss the suit, citing sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The trial court granted the dismissal. On appeal, Schrader argued that the TTCA's waiver of immunity applied and that the intentional tort exclusion did not, as Trooper Hale did not intend to injure him. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the gravamen of Schrader's complaint was excessive force—a battery, an intentional tort—which falls under the TTCA's intentional tort exclusion, thus preserving DPS's sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExclusionBatteryExcessive ForcePolice MisconductPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityInterlocutory Appeal
References
29
Case No. NO. 03-08-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2010

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Thomas Williams

Appellee Thomas Williams sued the Texas Department of Public Safety for discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being involuntarily transferred from the Governor's Protective Detail to the narcotics division. A jury found the Department retaliated against Williams, awarding him back pay, front pay, and damages for mental anguish. The Department appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for an adverse employment action and the monetary awards, and improper admission of an internal affairs report and an EEOC determination letter. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Williams's transfer, which resulted in a substantial loss of overtime and other benefits, constituted a materially adverse employment action. The court also found the jury's back and front pay awards were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

Employment RetaliationRace DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAdverse Employment ActionBack PayFront PayOvertime CompensationEvidentiary RulingsInternal Affairs ReportEEOC Determination Letter
References
33
Case No. 13-17-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Herminio Pasillas

The Texas Department of Public Safety (Department) appealed a county court's judgment that reversed the suspension of Herminio Pasillas's driver's license. Pasillas was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being stopped for an inoperable taillamp, exhibiting signs of intoxication, and failing field sobriety tests, with a subsequent breath test showing an alcohol concentration of 0.091. An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially suspended Pasillas's license, finding sufficient evidence for the stop, arrest, and intoxication, but the county court reversed this decision. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals independently reviewed the ALJ's decision under a substantial evidence standard. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings and rejected Pasillas's arguments regarding the untrustworthiness of the officer's sworn report and unpreserved issues from the ALR hearing. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the county court's judgment and reinstated the suspension of Pasillas's driver's license.

Driver's License SuspensionDWIAdministrative License Revocation (ALR)Substantial Evidence ReviewProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionAdmissibility of EvidenceOfficer's Sworn ReportBreath TestTraffic Violation
References
18
Case No. 08-25-00021-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2025

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Kenneth F. Sanders, Jr.

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by Kenneth Sanders, Jr. Sanders, a former Texas State Trooper, sued DPS for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his resignation, which he alleged was a constructive discharge. DPS asserted sovereign immunity, arguing Sanders failed to establish a prima facie case for his claims. The appellate court found that Sanders did not sufficiently plead facts to demonstrate a prima facie case for either disability discrimination or retaliation, thereby failing to invoke the TCHRA's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Sanders's claims against DPS.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActDisability DiscriminationConstructive DischargePrima Facie CaseCausationTemporal Proximity
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Ass'n

Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and other appellees for wrongful termination, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and tortious interference with business. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery due to a pending criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The trial court denied his requests for abatement and a protective order, subsequently dismissing his civil suit for non-compliance with discovery. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Denton did not waive his privilege by 'offensive use' under the *Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis* test. The court also concluded that dismissal was an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional rights, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationDiscovery AbuseSanctionsCivil ProcedureDue ProcessEmployment LawWaiverAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court judgment that reversed DPS's determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The appellee had been convicted in Massachusetts in 1993 for "indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years of age." DPS contended that the elements of the Massachusetts offense were "substantially similar" to Texas's sexual assault or indecency with a child, thus mandating registration. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts crime are not "substantially similar" to the Texas offenses, citing significant differences in the nature of sexual conduct, protected interests, seriousness, and potential punishments. The court also addressed the exclusion of a police report by the trial court.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Substantially Similar ElementsMassachusetts LawTexas Penal CodeSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryCriminal AttemptStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 5,210 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