50 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Niu v. Revcor Molded Products Co.green2 sentences2019Co., 206 S.W.3d 723, 731 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (“[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.”). 2017See id.; Chandler, 376 S.W.3d at 823 (“ ‘[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.’ ”) (quoting Nui, 206 S.W.3d at 731 ); Parker, 365 S.W.3d at 67 . | 5 | 6 |
Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozzagreen2 sentences2018Co., 206 S.W.3d 723, 731 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (citing Texas Div.-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Tex. 1994)). 2012Hernandez, 350 S.W.3d at 286 ; Dias, 214 S.W.3d at 676 ; see also McCoy, 183 S.W.3d at 555 (noting that retaliation claims use “[t]he same burden-shifting analysis” as race-discrimination claims). “[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.” Niu, 206 S.W.3d at 731 (citing Tex. Div.-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Tex.1994)). | 4 | 4 |
City of LaPorte v. Barfieldred2 sentences2016The court concluded, “Because a retaliatory discharge claim may not- be brought against the government without its consent and the Political Subdivisions Law no longer provides such consent by waiving the government’s immunity, the underlying claim in this case must be dismissed.” Id. at 59 . 2008See Barfield , 898 S.W.2d at 298 ("This election-of-remedies provision . . . persuades us, in the end, that the Legislature must have intended to waive political subdivisions' immunity for liability imposed by the Anti-Retaliation Law [in labor code chapter 451]."). | 3 | 4 |
Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2021Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005). 2020Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); see also Melendez, 477 S.W.3d at 312 . | 3 | 3 |
Graves v. Kometgreen2 sentences2024See Brown v. UPS, 406 F. App’x 837, 840 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting “Title VII does not protect opposition to all forms of unscrupulous conduct”; rather it “protects only opposition to discrimination based on ‘race, color, religion, sex, or national origin’” and holding complaints of unfair work distribution, unpaid overtime, and selective enforcement of a lunch policy, without more, were not prohibited by Title VII and therefore opposition to those practices was not protected by Title VII); Graves v. Komet, 982 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (“In order to state 2018To state a retaliatory discharge claim, the plaintiff’s opposition must be “to an unlawful employment practice.” Graves, 982 S.W.2d at 556 (emphasis original). | 2 | 2 |
Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp.green2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if die firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). . 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if die firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). . | 2 | 2 |
DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if die firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). . 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2 |
DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 989 So. 2d 351 , 358–59 (Miss. 2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp. , 872 P.2d 852 , 855–56 (N.M. 1994) (leaving open “the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 512 F.3d 173 , 176–77 (5th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc. , 173 P.3d 453, 458 (Ariz. Ct. Ap 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2 |
Higgins v. Assmann Electronics, Inc.green2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2 |
In Re Poly-America, L.P.green2 sentences2009Id. at 349, 352 ; see also Tex. Lab. 2009Id. at 349, 352 ; see also Tex. Lab. | 2 | 2 |
Tomhave v. Oaks Psychiatric Hospitalgreen2 sentences2007See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 161.134 (a), (f); Tomhave v. Oaks Psychiatric Hosp., 82 S.W.3d 381, 385 (Tex.App.Austin 2002, pet. denied). 2007See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 161.134(a), (f); Tomhave v. Oaks Psychiatric Hosp. , 82 S.W.3d 381, 385 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied). | 2 | 2 |
La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp.green2 sentences2004La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp. , 123 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (citing M.D. 2004La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp., 123 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (citing M.D. | 2 | 2 |
West v. MAINTENANCE TOOL & SUPPLY CO., INC.green2 sentences2004Compare Bocalbos, 162 F.3d at 383 (test for FMLA retaliatory discharge claim), with West, 89 S.W.3d at 105 (test for Texas workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge claim). 2004Compare Bocalbos , 162 F.3d at 383 (test for FMLA retaliatory discharge claim), with West , 89 S.W.3d at 105 (test for Texas workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim). | 2 | 2 |
Bernardo G. Bocalbos, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. National Western Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2004Compare Bocalbos, 162 F.3d at 383 (test for FMLA retaliatory discharge claim), with West, 89 S.W.3d at 105 (test for Texas workers’ compensation retaliatory discharge claim). 2004Compare Bocalbos , 162 F.3d at 383 (test for FMLA retaliatory discharge claim), with West , 89 S.W.3d at 105 (test for Texas workers' compensation retaliatory discharge claim). | 2 | 2 |
Kingsaire, Inc. D/B/A Kings Aire, Inc. v. Jorge Melendezgreen2 sentences2020Haggar Clothing Co. v. Hernandez, 164 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); see also Melendez, 477 S.W.3d at 312 . 2018Melendez, 477 S.W.3d at 312 ; Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Aguilar, 394 S.W.3d 276, 287 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied); Parker, 365 S.W.3d at 67 . “[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.” Niu v. Revcor Molded Prods. | 1 | 2 |
Hooper v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 989 So. 2d 351 , 358–59 (Miss. 2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp. , 872 P.2d 852 , 855–56 (N.M. 1994) (leaving open “the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 512 F.3d 173 , 176–77 (5th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc. , 173 P.3d 453, 458 (Ariz. Ct. Ap 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 1 | 2 |
Miklosy v. Regents of the University of Californiagreen2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 1 | 2 |
| Kenneth Brown v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shedrick Chandler v. CSC Appied Technologies, L. L .C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.green | 1 | 1 |
| Spinks v. TruGreen Landcare, L.L.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Veronice A. HOLT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Barron v. Cook Children's Health Care Systemgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCoy v. Texas Instruments, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Benson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Bexar Appraisal Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas Henry Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Michael Lee Thomas v. Ltv Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dallas County v. Gonzalesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 373473green | 1 | 1 |
| Jenkins v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Canutillo Independent School District v. Olivaresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Waco v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 150 . 2009Id. at 150 . | 3 | 2009–2011 |
Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman
green
2 sentences2025Travis Central 342 S.W.3d 54 , 65 Appraisal Dist. v. 54–55 (Tex. Discussing immunity in the context of a retaliatory discharge claim. 2012This result is all the more compelled by our later decision in Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman, 342 S.W.3d 54 (Tex.2011), where we revisited the issue of whether a retaliatory discharge claim *532 could be lodged against a governmental entity. | 2 | 2012–2025 |
Donald Parker v. Valerus Compression Services, LP
green
2 sentences2018Melendez, 477 S.W.3d at 312 ; Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Aguilar, 394 S.W.3d 276, 287 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied); Parker, 365 S.W.3d at 67 . “[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.” Niu v. Revcor Molded Prods. 2017See id.; Chandler, 376 S.W.3d at 823 (“ ‘[A]n employee’s subjective beliefs of retaliation are merely conclusions and do not raise a fact issue precluding summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim.’ ”) (quoting Nui, 206 S.W.3d at 731 ); Parker, 365 S.W.3d at 67 . | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Buckner v. Atlantic Plant Maintenance, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Reno v. Baird
green
2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont
green
2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 989 So. 2d 351 , 358–59 (Miss. 2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp. , 872 P.2d 852 , 855–56 (N.M. 1994) (leaving open “the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 512 F.3d 173 , 176–77 (5th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc. , 173 P.3d 453, 458 (Ariz. Ct. Ap 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Ballinger v. Delaware River Port Authority
green
2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 989 So. 2d 351 , 358–59 (Miss. 2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp. , 872 P.2d 852 , 855–56 (N.M. 1994) (leaving open “the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 512 F.3d 173 , 176–77 (5th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc. , 173 P.3d 453, 458 (Ariz. Ct. Ap 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Rebarchek v. FARMERS CO-OP ELEVATOR & MERCANTILE ASS'N OF DIGHTON
green
2 sentences2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 989 So. 2d 351 , 358–59 (Miss. 2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp. , 872 P.2d 852 , 855–56 (N.M. 1994) (leaving open “the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee’s own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment”). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. , 512 F.3d 173 , 176–77 (5th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc. , 173 P.3d 453, 458 (Ariz. Ct. Ap 2010See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 989 So.2d 351, 358-59 (Miss.2008) (en banc); see also Bourgeous v. Horizon Healthcare Corp., 117 N.M. 434 , 872 P.2d 852, 855-56 (N.M.1994) (leaving open "the question of whether a retaliatory discharge claim lies against a supervisor, agent, or coemployee if the firing was an intentional act done solely for the supervisor, agent or coemployee's own interest and therefore outside the scope of employment"). [3] See DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc., 512 F.3d 173, 176-77 (5th Cir.2007) (collecting cases); Higgins v. Assmann Elecs., Inc., 217 Ariz. 289 , 173 P.3d 45 | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Thomas v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 738 . 2009Id. at 738 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 911-12 ; see also Mancera v. City of Laredo , No. 04-04-00301-CV, 2005 WL 542793 , at *4-*5 (Tex. App. C San Antonio Mar. 9, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to a section 451.001 claim because Texas Labor Code chapter 451 does not require a claimant to pursue administrative process before filing a retaliatory discharge claim; distinguishing discrimination claims brought under Texas Labor Code chapter 21, which contains exhaustion provision). 2009Id. at 911-12 ; see also Mancera v. City of Laredo, No. 04-04-00301-CV, 2005 WL 542793 , at *4-*5 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Mar. 9, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply to a section 451.001 claim because Texas Labor Code chapter 451 does not require a claimant to pursue administrative process before filing a retaliatory discharge claim; distinguishing discrimination claims brought under Texas Labor Code chapter 21, which contains exhaustion provision). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
LTTS Charter School, Inc. v. C2 Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025Norman 2011) LTTS Charter Sch., 342 S.W.3d 73 , 66 Inc. v. C2 Constr., Discussing immunity in the context of a breach-of-contract claim. 75 (Tex. 2011) Inc. 8 City of Dallas v. 347 S.W.3d 231 , Explaining Texas’s state constitution waived sovereign immunity where a plaintiff 67 VSC, LLC 236 (Tex. 2011) brought a claim under the Takings Clause of the Texas Constitution. 351 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.— Tex. Health & Austin 2011), Discussing immunity where Hospitals sought declaratory judgment and injunctive Hum. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Texas Health & Human Services Commission v. El Paso County Hospital District
green
1 sentence2025Norman 2011) LTTS Charter Sch., 342 S.W.3d 73 , 66 Inc. v. C2 Constr., Discussing immunity in the context of a breach-of-contract claim. 75 (Tex. 2011) Inc. 8 City of Dallas v. 347 S.W.3d 231 , Explaining Texas’s state constitution waived sovereign immunity where a plaintiff 67 VSC, LLC 236 (Tex. 2011) brought a claim under the Takings Clause of the Texas Constitution. 351 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.— Tex. Health & Austin 2011), Discussing immunity where Hospitals sought declaratory judgment and injunctive Hum. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC
green
1 sentence2025Norman 2011) LTTS Charter Sch., 342 S.W.3d 73 , 66 Inc. v. C2 Constr., Discussing immunity in the context of a breach-of-contract claim. 75 (Tex. 2011) Inc. 8 City of Dallas v. 347 S.W.3d 231 , Explaining Texas’s state constitution waived sovereign immunity where a plaintiff 67 VSC, LLC 236 (Tex. 2011) brought a claim under the Takings Clause of the Texas Constitution. 351 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.— Tex. Health & Austin 2011), Discussing immunity where Hospitals sought declaratory judgment and injunctive Hum. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hernandez v. Grey Wolf Drilling, L.P. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Dias v. Goodman Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Dallas Independent School District v. Powell green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Miguel Medrano v. Excel Corporation green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| in Re: Dillard Department Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Texas Department of Human Services v. Hinds green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Chatman v. Saks Fifth Avenue of Texas, Inc. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.