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. 03-22-00188-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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Compass Bank v. Victor Nacim and Rachel Nacim

This case involves Victor and Rachel Nacim suing Compass Bank for substantial losses incurred due to the dishonest actions of David Peterson, a bank employee. Peterson made unauthorized withdrawals and loans from the Nacims' accounts at State National Bank, which later merged with Compass Bank. The Nacims discovered multiple discrepancies over time, including significant debits and a personal loan to Peterson. Compass Bank appealed the judgment against it, arguing that the Nacims' claims were barred under the UCC for delayed reporting and that their deposit agreement shortened reporting deadlines. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Compass Bank failed to prove it suffered a loss and that the deposit agreement's language regarding reporting deadlines was ambiguous, thus invalidating the bank's UCC preclusion defenses.

Bank FraudUnauthorized WithdrawalsCustomer AgreementsUCC Article 4Comparative NegligenceStatute of LimitationsContract AmbiguityAttorney's FeesOffer of SettlementDeposit Account Agreement
References
46
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doynow Sales Associates, Inc. v. Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc.

Plaintiff Doynow Sales Associates, Inc. (DSA) brought an action against Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc., alleging breach of contract for reducing DSA's sales commissions on two large accounts, Swimline and Latham, and for converting these into 'house accounts.' Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. DSA argued that the Sales Representative Agreement did not permit Rocheux to unilaterally alter commission rates or remove accounts. Rocheux contended it had the right to establish sales policies and that commission rates were subject to mutual agreement and account profitability, evidenced by DSA's past conduct. The court found the terms of the Agreement regarding 'necessity' for commission reductions and the ability to remove accounts to be ambiguous. Due to this ambiguity and conflicting extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent and subsequent conduct, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed. Consequently, both parties' summary judgment motions were denied, and the case is to proceed to trial.

Contract LawSales CommissionBreach of ContractSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationSales Representative AgreementAccount ReassignmentMutual AgreementCourse of PerformanceExtrinsic Evidence
References
92
Case No. 11-22-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

George Francis Sheehan, Jr. v. Pamela Sheehan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce where Appellant, George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contended the trial court erred by characterizing proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property. George was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and received a UIM settlement of $1,250,000 in 2019, with a net amount of $710,724.25 deposited into a joint checking account with Pamela Sheehan before their final separation. George argued the funds were his separate property based on a second settlement agreement executed after the funds were received and disbursed, which allocated proceeds to personal injury damages. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, found the first settlement agreement, executed contemporaneously with the mediation, did not allocate specific damages and that the later agreement did not alter the marital property characterization. The court concluded that George failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence which portion of the settlement proceeds was his separate property, as the first settlement released both community and separate property claims. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

divorcecommunity propertyseparate propertyunderinsured motorist claimsettlement proceedsmarital propertyabuse of discretionclear and convincing evidencepersonal injury damagesTexas Family Code
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1981

Spielman v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Plaintiffs, trustees of an employee benefit fund, sued Chemical Bank for damages related to a forged check. Their attorney fraudulently induced them to issue a check for a purported settlement. The attorney then forged a restrictive indorsement ('for deposit only') and deposited it into his personal account at Chemical Bank, despite the payee law firm having no account there. While Chemical Bank argued non-liability under UCC 3-405(1)(c) due to the forger being the drawer's agent, the court held Chemical Bank liable for violating UCC 3-206(3) by not adhering to the restrictive indorsement. The court clarified that 'for deposit only' implies deposit into the payee-indorser's account. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Chemical Bank was affirmed.

conversionsummary judgmentUniform Commercial Coderestrictive indorsementforged indorsementdepositary bank liabilitypayee-indorserdrawer's agentemployee benefit fundappellate court
References
3
Case No. 03-95-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1996

Central Power and Light Company v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Central Power and Light Company (CP&L) appealed a summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller regarding the interpretation of a provision within the Franchise Tax Act, specifically concerning the computation of a company's surplus. CP&L challenged the Comptroller's interpretation of "generally accepted accounting principles" to include Financial Accounting Standards, arguing it resulted in unequal taxation by requiring utilities to capitalize AFUDC-equity while not requiring private companies to do so. CP&L also claimed the interpretation resurrected the

Franchise Tax ActAllowance for Funds Used During ConstructionAFUDC-equityFinancial Accounting Standards BoardTexas Constitution Article VIII Section 1Equal and Uniform TaxationDelegation of Legislative PowerRegulated UtilitiesSummary Judgment AppealTax Refund Action
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,907 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