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. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
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
Case No. 22055
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

Texas Municipal Power Agency (Municipal Power) challenged a trial court's dismissal of its declaratory judgment action, which was filed alongside an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) appeal. The core issue was whether Municipal Power could simultaneously pursue a declaratory judgment action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) to interpret the general statutory authority of the Public Utility Commission (the Commission) under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), independently of an APA appeal challenging a specific agency order. The court ruled that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity for claims seeking statutory interpretation against the state. It further determined that a UDJA action aiming to define an agency's general statutory authority is distinct from, and not duplicated by, an APA appeal focusing on the validity of a specific agency action. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order granting the pleas to the jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActAPAStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionWholesale ElectricityTransmission CostsMunicipal Utilities
References
20
Case No. 15-24-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley v. Texas Municipal Power Agency

This document is a reply brief filed by Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley (Appellants) against Texas Municipal Power Agency (Appellee). The brief addresses several points on appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas. Key arguments include that the trial court's declaratory relief improperly expanded and rewrote the Easement, particularly concerning TMPA's discretion and the interpretation of "wall" versus "fence." The appellants also argue that TMPA incorrectly relied on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §37.011 for injunctive relief without proper pleading or proof, and failed to meet requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. A significant portion of the brief challenges the award of attorney's fees to TMPA, asserting that TMPA failed to provide sufficient evidence for reasonable hourly rates and hours worked, and that the trial court abused its discretion in the award's amount. The Dudleys request the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s judgment, vacate declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions, and deny TMPA’s attorney’s fees claims, or alternatively, reverse and remand the case.

Easement RightsDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureLodestar MethodHourly RatesTrial Court DiscretionPleadingsBrazos County
References
14
Case No. E2011-01122-COA-R3-CV-FILED-FEBRUARY 21, 2012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2012

Alstom Power, Inc. v. Sue Ann Head, Administrator, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Workers' Compensation Division

Alstom Power, Inc., an employer, challenged a worker's compensation claim and an order for medical benefits from the Tennessee Department of Labor, facing a $10,000 penalty. Alstom sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and certiorari, but the Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating Alstom had not exhausted the administrative review process through the Benefit Review Conference (BRC). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, agreeing that the statutory scheme requires exhaustion of the BRC process for all workers' compensation disputes, including those concerning medical benefits and physician panels, before judicial review. The Court found Alstom's arguments regarding a lack of meaningful review to be without merit, thus upholding the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ExhaustionSubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorariBenefit Review ConferenceMedical BenefitsPhysician PanelAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 09-16-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency v. Ralph J. Gillis, Gillis Borchardt & Barthel LLP, Obain Associates Limited and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust

This appeal concerns Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency's (SRMPA) lawsuit against its former attorney, Ralph J. Gillis, and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to the 'Nisco Deal' and the 'Cambridge Project' energy initiatives. SRMPA accused Gillis of self-dealing and undisclosed personal financial gains from these projects. The trial court, following a jury verdict, denied SRMPA's claims regarding the Nisco Deal due to the statute of limitations, but awarded damages for Gillis's breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Cambridge Project. SRMPA appealed the denial of equitable relief, the limitations finding, and the quantum of damages, while Gillis, Obain, and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust filed cross-appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment across all contested issues.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentEnergy ProjectsAttorney MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsEquitable ReliefDisgorgementConstructive TrustDamagesRespondeat Superior
References
59
Case No. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,115 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