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. 03-95-00093-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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership D/B/A Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Alfonso Ventura and Maria Ventura

Alfonso and Maria Ventura filed a wrongful foreclosure suit against Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership d/b/a Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. after their homestead was sold due to an unpaid tax lien note. The Venturas alleged the appellants failed to properly account for surplus funds and raised additional claims of fraud, usury, and failure to account. Appellants, despite being served and making a general appearance through a Rule 11 agreement, failed to file an answer and did not appear for trial, leading to a post-appearance default judgment against them for $66,958 plus attorney's fees. Appellants' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Appellants failed to prove their absence was not due to conscious indifference and that the record supported the damages award.

Wrongful ForeclosureDefault JudgmentPost-Appearance DefaultMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseRule 11 AgreementDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureDamages
References
24
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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. NO. 18-0503
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2020

Ebs Solutions, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

EBS Solutions, Inc. challenged a franchise tax assessment by the Comptroller of Public Accounts. EBS partially prepaid the assessed taxes and filed an oath of inability to pay the remainder, seeking to invoke the exception in Texas Tax Code § 112.108. The Comptroller argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction, asserting § 112.108 was unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Supreme Court of Texas held that § 112.108, as applied to EBS, does not create an unreasonable financial barrier to accessing courts, interpreting 'inability to pay' broadly to include the inability to pay the full assessed amount. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, concluding that EBS had satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for waiver of sovereign immunity.

Franchise TaxTax AssessmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityPrepayment PrerequisiteTexas Tax Code Section 112.108Open Courts ProvisionAs-Applied Constitutional ChallengeInability-to-Pay ExceptionJudicial Review
References
41
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,613 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