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. 03-14-00771-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Sanadco Inc., a Texas Corporation Mahmoud Ahmed Isba Broadway Grocery, Inc. And Shariz, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, in His Individual and Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas

This Accelerated Appeal Reply Brief is submitted by Appellants Sanadco Inc. et al., challenging the trial court’s judgment in Cause No. D-1-GN-13-4352. Appellants argue that the underlying administrative judgments, which support the Comptroller’s collection activities, are void and unenforceable. They contend that the audit procedures (AP92 and AP122) were not properly adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements, leading to ultra vires conduct by the Comptroller. Appellants assert that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary injunction against the Comptroller's enforcement activities, as the administrative orders lacked a final judgment and were nullified upon the filing of petitions for judicial review. They also argue that Chapter 112’s prepayment provisions are unconstitutional and inapplicable to their claims challenging the validity of rules and statutes.

Administrative Procedure ActUltra ViresDeclaratory JudgmentTax AssessmentState TaxJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionStatutory AuthorityTemporary InjunctionAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 03-19-00750-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2021

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and the Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas

Jai Dining Services (Odessa), Inc. appealed the trial court’s dismissal of its claims challenging an assessment of sexually oriented business (SOB) fees by the Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of Texas. Jai argued it was not an SOB and that the Comptroller retroactively applied rules, seeking declaratory judgments under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), alongside an ultra vires claim and a temporary injunction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that sovereign immunity barred the UDJA and ultra vires claims due to the redundant remedies doctrine. It also found that the APA claim lacked a justiciable controversy, as Jai filed its claim after the rule was applied and did not pursue a Chapter 112 claim for permanent relief. The court further noted that Jai did not properly plead a Chapter 112 claim, which would have allowed consideration of an oath of inability to pay, distinguishing its situation from the precedent set in EBS II.

Tax LawTexas CourtsAppellate ProcedureSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory ReliefAdministrative LawPlea to JurisdictionSexually Oriented Business FeesTax AssessmentJudicial Review
References
21
Case No. 03-22-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

RJR Vapor Co., LLC// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas The Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, RJR Vapor Co., LLC

RJR Vapor Co., LLC sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas to recover protested tax payments on its oral nicotine products (VELO pouches and lozenges). The central dispute was whether VELO products are 'tobacco products' under Texas Tax Code Section 155.001(15)(E), which defines such products as 'made of tobacco or a tobacco substitute'. The trial court ruled in favor of RJR Vapor, granting a refund and declaring parts of the statute unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that VELO products are not taxable tobacco products, thus upholding the refund. The court also vacated the trial court's constitutional declarations and dismissed RJR Vapor's related claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, deeming them moot.

Tax LawStatutory InterpretationTobacco Products TaxNicotine ProductsOral NicotineTax RefundConstitutional ChallengesMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cantelmo v. New York State Comptroller

The petitioner, a police officer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, applied for performance of duty and accidental disability retirement benefits, including World Trade Center accidental disability benefits, following diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied the applications, concluding the petitioner was not permanently disabled. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with the petitioner's experts diagnosing permanent PTSD disability and the Retirement System's psychiatrist diagnosing a treatable major depressive disorder. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, stating that the Comptroller has the authority to resolve conflicts in medical evidence and that the Retirement System's expert provided a rational and fact-based opinion, thus supporting the determination with substantial evidence.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice OfficerPTSDWorld Trade Center AttackComptroller's DeterminationMedical Evidence ConflictPermanent IncapacityPsychiatric EvaluationArticle 78 ProceedingNew York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System
References
6
Case No. 03-03-00643-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Alpine Industries, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Alpine Industries, Inc. appealed a district court's summary judgment that held it responsible for collecting Texas sales taxes as a direct sales organization. The Comptroller of Public Accounts determined Alpine, which utilizes independent salespersons to sell air-purification equipment, fell under a provision of the Texas Tax Code requiring it to collect and remit sales tax. Alpine contested this, arguing the Comptroller failed to prove it was a direct sales organization, did not make an individualized determination for administrative efficiency, and that the tax violated the Commerce, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the Comptroller properly applied the tax code and that the tax did not infringe upon Alpine's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court upheld the Comptroller's counterclaim for over $2 million in back taxes.

Tax lawSales tax liabilityDirect sales organizationAdministrative efficiencyCommerce ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional lawSummary judgmentAppellate review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Francesco v. Comptroller of New York

The petitioner sought accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining leg and wrist injuries. Both the Medical Disability Board and a subsequent hearing denied the application, determining that the petitioner was not permanently disabled from performing duties as a senior court officer. The court rejected claims that the Hearing Officer improperly restricted the presentation of medical evidence and found that the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding of continuing disability was not binding on the Comptroller. Ultimately, the court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial credible evidence from an orthopedic specialist.

Accidental Disability BenefitsRetirement SystemsMedical Evidence AdmissibilityCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative LawCourt Officer DisabilityAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. 03-00-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas v. Marcie Caldwell Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries in participating statutory county courts. Caldwell alleged this varying cost violated due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Rylander, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied the Comptroller's plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Caldwell's suit was not barred by sovereign immunity as it challenged a state official's actions under an allegedly unconstitutional law, and that exclusive remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. The court also found a justiciable controversy existed, as the Comptroller enforces the challenged statute.

Sovereign ImmunityJurisdictionConstitutional LawGovernment CodeCourt CostsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefClass ActionDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
20
Case No. 03-10-00323-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Austin Engineering Co., Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Austin Engineering Co., Inc. (Austin Engineering) appealed a trial court's order that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and the Attorney General of the State of Texas (Comptroller) in a suit to recover sales taxes paid under protest. Austin Engineering provides construction services, including the installation of erosion prevention devices. A sales and use tax audit resulted in an assessment of $53,654, which Austin Engineering paid under protest, arguing the erosion control measures were nontaxable or exempt. The case centered on the taxability of these transactions and several claimed exemptions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Austin Engineering's motion, but reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Comptroller, remanding the cause for further proceedings due to a fact issue regarding the exemption for consumable supplies.

Sales TaxUse TaxSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionTax ExemptionsErosion ControlTangible Personal PropertyConsumable SuppliesDeclaratory Judgment ActConstitutional Law
References
21
Case No. 03-10-00648-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2013

Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA v. Susan Combs, State of Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas

This case concerns an appeal by "Assignees of Best Buy, OfficeMax, and CompUSA" against the Texas Comptroller and Attorney General. The Assignees sought sales tax refunds on rebated amounts, claiming assignments from the retailers allowed them to pursue these claims. The Comptroller denied the claims, arguing that the settlement-class counsel lacked authority to represent individual class members in administrative proceedings, as the tax code does not permit class-action refunds. The trial court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling that the initial orders appointing settlement-class counsel for individual administrative proceedings were void due to a lack of judicial power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the trial courts lacked jurisdiction to appoint class counsel for individual claims outside the class action, thereby confirming that the Assignees failed to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign immunity was not waived.

Sales Tax RefundClass ActionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionCollateral AttackRule 42 (Texas Civil Procedure)Attorney AppointmentImplied Powers
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 175 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