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. 03-09-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation// Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White v. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Transportation

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) amended its crash report form, removing a space for driver telephone numbers. Texas Weekly Advocate and Dr. Jeffrey White (Plaintiffs) sued TxDOT under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), arguing that TxDOT failed to comply with proper rulemaking procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their APA claim, enjoining TxDOT, but dismissed the UDJA claim and denied attorney's fees. On appeal, the court vacated the trial court's APA injunction and dismissed that part of the cause as moot, as TxDOT had subsequently completed the required rulemaking process. Additionally, the Plaintiffs' UDJA claim was deemed moot due to redundancy with the APA claim, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion as the UDJA claim did not substantially broaden the action already provided by the APA.

Administrative Procedure ActUniform Declaratory Judgments ActMootnessAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefRulemaking ProceduresCrash Report FormTexas Department of TransportationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
10
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 It is also about the validity of DADS’ “secret rule,” unpublished and not promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which DADS uses to justify omitting admittedly “usable” floor space.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

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cone v. Stranahan

In the fall of 2005, the plaintiff sought to purchase unimproved land from the defendant in Warren County. The defendant disclosed wetlands and existing dirt piles. After executing a contract, workers' compensation liens were discovered, which were resolved through an escrow account. Subsequently, the plaintiff learned the defendant had dumped more fill post-contract and involved the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), which initiated an investigation. The plaintiff demanded assurances of no APA violations, which the defendant refused. The defendant then issued a 'time of the essence' closing notice, which the plaintiff failed to attend. The plaintiff sued for specific performance. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion, ruling that potential APA violations rendered the title unmarketable and ordered the defendant to cooperate. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that potential regulatory violations do not affect marketable title and that the contract did not obligate the defendant to comply with an APA investigation. The appellate court granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Real Estate ContractSpecific PerformanceMarketable TitleEnvironmental RegulationsAPA InvestigationSummary JudgmentProperty DumpingContract BreachTime of the EssenceAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 08-CV-2503
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. Gutierrez

This case originated from plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs challenging the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery management rule, alleging violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with additional claims against the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) for violating its Compact and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. The court previously denied ASMFC's motion to dismiss, classifying it as a 'quasi-federal agency' subject to APA review due to extensive federal involvement and its de facto regulatory authority. In the current ruling, the court denies ASMFC's motion for reconsideration of that decision, reaffirming its stance that ASMFC is amenable to APA review. However, the court grants ASMFC's request to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, allowing for appellate review on the questions of APA applicability and Eleventh Amendment immunity, citing the significant legal issues, potential for differing opinions, and the possibility of materially advancing the litigation's termination.

Fishery ManagementAdministrative LawInterstate CompactJudicial ReviewEleventh Amendment ImmunityFederalismAPA ReviewQuasi-Federal Agency DoctrineEnvironmental LawMarine Fisheries Regulation
References
53
Case No. 03-13-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Texas Department of State Health Services And Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Marcela Balquinta Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. Planned Parenthood Association of Lubbock, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning judicial jurisdiction and procedure regarding the exclusion of Planned Parenthood entities from the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), a state-funded health benefits program. The Planned Parenthood entities, along with an enrollee, challenged new administrative rules implemented by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Executive Commissioner, Kyle Janek, which barred providers affiliated with organizations that perform or promote elective abortions. The appellate court analyzed whether the plaintiffs had constitutional standing and if the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims, including those filed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). The court affirmed the district court's jurisdiction over the APA claims and requests for injunctive relief, finding a waiver of sovereign immunity under APA section 2001.038. However, it reversed and rendered judgment dismissing the UDJA claims, deeming them either redundant of the APA claims or not yet ripe for resolution.

Abortion PolicyWomen's Health ProgramMedicaidPlanned ParenthoodTexas Health PolicyStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional Standing
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2014

Teladoc, Inc. v. Texas Medical Board and Nancy Leshikar, in Her Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Board

Teladoc, Inc., a telehealth provider, sued the Texas Medical Board (TMB) after TMB sent a letter to the Texas Medical Association. In this letter, TMB warned that Teladoc's practice of providing medical services over the phone without a 'face-to-face' examination violated Board Rule 190.8(1)(L)(i)(II) and could lead to disciplinary action against participating physicians. Teladoc contended that TMB's letter constituted an unpublished 'rule' under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it effectively amended existing regulations without following proper notice-and-comment procedures. The district court sided with TMB, but the appellate court reversed, finding that TMB's pronouncements in the letter indeed qualified as a 'rule' under the APA. Consequently, the court declared TMB's 'rule' invalid due to the lack of compliance with APA rulemaking requirements.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Texas Medical Board (TMB)TelemedicinePhysician-Patient RelationshipMedical Practice ActInformal Agency ActionAgency Interpretation
References
32
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

in Re Texas State Board of Public Accountancy

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a district court's order that allowed discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants. The core legal question was whether general discovery procedures, typically used at the agency (trial) level, are permissible during judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court determined that while the APA allows for the introduction of evidence concerning procedural irregularities not reflected in the agency record, it does not authorize a second round of discovery at the district court level. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the scope of judicial review and its waiver of governmental immunity. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court erred by denying the Board's motion for a protective order and permitting discovery.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscovery LimitationsAgency AdjudicationProtective OrderGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

TEXAS MUN. POWER AGEN. v. Pub. Util. Com'n

Texas Municipal Power Agency (Municipal Power) challenged an order by the Public Utility Commission (Commission) concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power filed an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) appeal and later amended its petition to include a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), seeking a declaration on the scope of the Commission's statutory authority under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the UDJA action on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies available in the APA appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking an interpretation of an agency's general statutory authority and that the UDJA action was distinct from and broader than the APA appeal, which only addressed specific agency orders.

Administrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunityJurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission CostsStatutory InterpretationInterlocutory AppealAppellate Procedure
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 77 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