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. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 22-0585
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2024

Texas Department of Transportation v. Mark Self and Birgit Self

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was sued by Mark and Birgit Self for negligence and inverse condemnation after a subcontractor cut down trees on the Selfs' property outside the State's right-of-way easement. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment on both counts. The Court held that the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for the Selfs' negligence claim because the subcontractor's employees were not in TxDOT's paid service, nor did TxDOT employees directly operate the equipment. However, the Court found a viable cause of action for inverse condemnation, concluding that TxDOT intentionally directed the destruction of the trees for public use, even if it mistakenly believed it had the legal right to do so. The negligence claim was dismissed, and the inverse condemnation claim was remanded for further proceedings.

Sovereign ImmunityInverse CondemnationNegligence ClaimTort Claims ActGovernment LiabilityProperty DamageRight-of-Way EasementSubcontractor LiabilityTree RemovalEminent Domain
References
65
Case No. NO. 12-19-00036-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

City of Dallas, a Self-Insured Employer v. Gregory D. Thompson

The City of Dallas, a self-insured employer, appealed a trial court's partial summary judgment related to Gregory D. Thompson's workers' compensation claim. Thompson, a former firefighter, was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 2010, attributed to carcinogen exposure. Dallas initially denied liability, and the case proceeded through DWC administrative review. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined Thompson suffered a compensable injury but failed to file a claim within one year, though Dallas waived this defense. The trial court affirmed the ALJ's decision regarding waiver. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding Dallas did not meet its burden to show the ALJ erroneously added the waiver issue and that the defense was not raised within a reasonable time.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseFirefighter CancerTimely Claim FilingWaiver DefenseJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeAdministrative Law Judge
References
18
Case No. 12-20-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

Sean Self v. West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District

Sean Self appealed a take-nothing judgment granted to West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District, dismissing Self’s suit for damages from sewage flooding his home. Self alleged negligent use of motor-driven equipment, premises defect, unconstitutional taking, non-negligent nuisance, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Self failed to establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for the motor-driven equipment claim, as the damages arose from a broken plastic coupler, not the motor-driven pump. The court also found no evidence to support the premises liability, takings, non-negligent nuisance, or breach of contract claims, thus the District retained immunity.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionMotor-Driven EquipmentPremises DefectInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractNon-negligent NuisanceSewage FloodMunicipal Utility District
References
36
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2004

Rogers v. Peeler

Tommy Peeler sued Michael S. Rogers for assault after Rogers shot and severely injured Peeler during a confrontation over a boundary line dispute. Rogers claimed self-defense. The jury awarded Peeler $1,250,000.00 in damages. Rogers appealed, challenging the trial court's jury instruction limiting his right to self-defense if he was unlawfully carrying a weapon while seeking a discussion of differences, and the admission of evidence of other violent incidents where Rogers also claimed self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the jury instruction proper and the admission of prior acts permissible to show Rogers' intent and to refute his self-defense theory.

Self-defenseAssaultBoundary DisputeFirearmsJury InstructionsEvidence AdmissibilityPrior ActsIntentMotiveAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 03-22-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund v. Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Cassie Brown in Her Official Capacity

The Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund (TPS Fund) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motion by the 455th District Court of Travis County. The TPS Fund, a self-insured governmental entity, was assessed administrative penalties totaling $132,500 by the Texas Department of Insurance–Division of Workers’ Compensation for violations of the Texas Labor Code related to nonpayment or late payment of workers’ compensation benefits. The TPS Fund asserted governmental immunity from these penalties. The Court of Appeals reviewed the legislative history and prior common law, including Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. City of Eagle Pass, to determine if immunity was waived. It concluded that the 2019 amendment to Labor Code Section 504.053(e) merely codified existing law, which had already established a clear waiver of immunity for such regulatory actions against self-insured political subdivisions. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the TPS Fund’s governmental immunity is waived for the administrative penalties.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative PenaltiesTexas Labor CodeSelf-InsurancePolitical SubdivisionsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRegulatory AuthoritySovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,400 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