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. 03-07-00720-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2009

COM'N ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY v. Kelsoe

This case involves Edwin B. Kelsoe's application for a solid-waste landfill permit, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) deemed incomplete and returned. Kelsoe challenged this decision, arguing his petition was timely filed and that TCEQ lacked authority. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, found that Kelsoe's petition for judicial review was not filed within the statutory thirty-day deadline as required by the Water Code and Health & Safety Code. The court concluded that neither Kelsoe's motion to overturn nor his constitutional due-process claims extended the filing period. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed Kelsoe's suit for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessJurisdictionLandfill PermitEnvironmental RegulationStatutory InterpretationTexas Water CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeDue Process
References
6
Case No. 03-15-00814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order concerning a plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant A. I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.) challenged a 2013 compliance history rating assigned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) and its Executive Director, Richard Hyde, which classified A.I. as an 'unsatisfactory performer'. A.I. argued that an agreed final judgment (AFJ) used by the Commission should not have been considered due to its specific terms and that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious. A.I. also sought declaratory relief under various acts and alleged a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals determined that A.I.'s suit for judicial review was moot because the 2013 rating had been superseded. The court further held that A.I.'s claims for declaratory relief lacked a justiciable controversy and its breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the dismissal of the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Compliance HistoryEnvironmental RegulationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMootness DoctrineSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractTexas Water CodeTexas Health and Safety Code
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sevenson Environmental Services Inc. v. Sirius America Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning a declaratory judgment action where plaintiffs Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. and The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, along with defendant Thomas Johnson, Inc. (TJI), sought a declaration that Sirius America Insurance Company (Sirius) was obligated to defend and indemnify TJI in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially favored TJI, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Sirius validly disclaimed coverage due to TJI's unreasonable 15-month delay in notifying Sirius of the accident, which constituted a breach of a condition precedent to coverage. Additionally, the court ruled that the lower court erred in compelling disclosure of documents Sirius claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege without an in camera review, remitting that aspect for further proceedings.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageLate NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentAttorney-Client PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeAppellate ReviewCondition PrecedentAgency Relationship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The appellants, Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. and Alphonso Solomon and Company, Inc., challenged a district court judgment that found them jointly and severally liable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility for unpaid insurance premiums, interest, and attorney’s fees. The appellants raised issues concerning the statute of limitations, sufficiency of evidence regarding contract terms, ASC's liability, and premium calculations, as well as the award of attorney’s fees and attorney authorization. The appellate court determined that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as the period commenced from the premium invoice date, not the policy expiration. Furthermore, the court found ample evidence to support the district court's findings on contract validity, ASC's shared financial responsibility, and accurate premium calculations. Ultimately, the judgment awarding unpaid premiums, interest, and attorney's fees to the Facility was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesJoint and Several LiabilityPayroll AuditCorporate OwnershipAppellate ReviewContract Dispute
References
12
Case No. 3-90-281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham regarding Fidelity's liability as a bonding agent for attorney's fees. The dispute originated from an earlier case where a newly formed hospital district in Lee County was deemed unconstitutional, and its trustees were found to have violated the Open Meetings Act, leading to an award of attorney's fees against them. As the hospital district had no assets, Concerned Taxpayers sued Fidelity as the surety on the trustees' public official bonds. The trial court held Fidelity liable for the attorney's fees from the prior case but denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, ruling that public official bonds broadly cover damages, including attorney's fees resulting from the unfaithful performance of duties, and that the trustees' Open Meetings Act violations constituted such unfaithful performance. The court also found Concerned Taxpayers to be incidental beneficiaries in the current suit, thus not entitled to attorney's fees.

Public Official BondsSurety LiabilityAttorney's Fees RecoveryDeclaratory Judgment ActOpen Meetings Act ViolationDe Facto Officer DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment AppealHospital District Formation
References
17
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 8,728 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