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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Nunez v. White

Petitioner, a prison inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, filed a grievance concerning tailor shop conditions, including an alleged unwritten policy on performance evaluations, lack of sewing machine safety guards, and removal of seat cushions. The Central Office Review Committee (CORC) largely denied the grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed CORC's rational determination regarding performance evaluations and sewing machine safety. However, it modified the judgment, remitting the part of the petition concerning the seat cushion procedure to CORC for further adjudication, as that aspect of the grievance had not been fully addressed.

inmate grievanceprison conditionsperformance evaluationtailor shopsewing machine safetyseat cushion policyadministrative exhaustionCPLR article 78Central Office Review Committeeremittal
References
6
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 11-06-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2006

Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board v. Plains Marketing, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing, L.P. appealing the tax assessment on its crude oil inventory accounts. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting that Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their challenge. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Plains had sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies because the exemption claim was thoroughly discussed and determined by the Appraisal Review Board, despite initial protest notice deficiencies. The core issue revolved around whether oil stored in tank farms for future delivery constituted taxable inventory or was exempt under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Property TaxAd ValoremAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate CommerceOil InventoryAppraisal Review BoardTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 03-01-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2001

Reliant Energy, Incorporated v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel And Steering Committees for the Cities Served by TXU Electric and Central Power and Light Company

This case involves a direct appeal where Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Appellant) challenged the Public Utility Commission of Texas's (the Commission) price-to-beat rules. Reliant argued that these rules failed to ensure an initial fuel factor above market costs and that the Commission erred in excluding Provider of Last Resort (POLR) customers from market share calculations. Additionally, Reliant contended that the Commission's rule 25.41 violated the reasoned justification requirement of the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, upheld the price-to-beat regulations, concluding that the Commission acted within its authorized powers, and its decisions regarding the fuel factor, POLR customers, and reasoned justification were valid and consistent with the legislative intent to balance fostering competition and providing customer rate reductions during the transition to a competitive electricity market.

Electricity MarketDeregulationPublic Utility CommissionPrice-to-Beat RulesFuel FactorRetail Electric ProvidersMarket CompetitionAdministrative LawReasoned JustificationStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Guidesoft, Inc. D/B/A Knowledge Services v. State Protest Committee, State of Tennessee

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

N.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bedford Central School District

Mr. and Mrs. N.C., on behalf of their son M.C. (Plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit against the Bedford Central School District (Defendant) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They challenged administrative determinations for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years, which concluded that M.C. was not a student with a disability due to emotional disturbance. M.C. had a history of sexual abuse, ADHD, behavioral problems, and drug use, leading Plaintiffs to unilaterally place him in a private boarding school and seek tuition reimbursement. The Committee on Special Education, Impartial Hearing Officers, and State Review Officer consistently found M.C. to be socially maladjusted with drug use as the primary issue, rather than an emotional disturbance adversely affecting his educational performance. The federal court conducted a de novo review, upholding the administrative decisions and denying Plaintiffs' request for tuition reimbursement for both academic years.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActEmotional Disturbance ClassificationTuition ReimbursementUnilateral PlacementDue Process HearingImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerCommittee on Special EducationSocial MaladjustmentAcademic Performance
References
15
Case No. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
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

State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Martinez

This case concerns a dispute between Edna Martinez and the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) regarding a workers' compensation claim. The central issues were whether Martinez's injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment and whether she sustained a disability. The administrative review process saw conflicting decisions, with a hearing officer denying compensability and an appeals panel finding for Martinez. The court addresses the distinction between appealing 'issues' versus 'findings of fact' under the Texas Labor Code for judicial review. The court concluded that parties must appeal issues, not individual factual findings, to preserve them for judicial review. Consequently, the court reversed the court of appeals' decision in part, remanding the case to address SORM's statutory arguments, and affirmed the denial of Martinez's motion for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation ClaimCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentDisability BenefitsAdministrative ReviewContested Case HearingAppeals Panel DecisionJudicial Review StandardsTexas Labor CodePreservation of Error
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,387 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