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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friedar v. Government of Israel

Samuel Friedar, a New York citizen, sued the Government of Israel and its branches for failing to compensate him for medical costs and expenses incurred after being injured while serving in the Israeli Army in 1948. Friedar alleged breach of contract, intentional withholding of information, negligent loss of files, and wrongful conversion of funds. The Government moved to dismiss, claiming sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1604 and that the action was barred by the Act of State doctrine. The Court found that the Government was entitled to sovereign immunity, rejecting Friedar's arguments for exceptions based on waiver or commercial activity. Furthermore, even if jurisdiction existed, the Court would dismiss the case under the Act of State doctrine, citing the impropriety of reviewing a foreign state's internal administrative activity, especially regarding military and veterans' benefits. The Government’s motion to dismiss was granted.

Sovereign ImmunityAct of State DoctrineMotion to DismissForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAGovernmental ImmunityCommercial Activity ExceptionVeterans' BenefitsJurisdictionInternational Law
References
13
Case No. M2015-01488-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County v. The Civil Service Commission of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville And Davidson County, Tennessee

An officer with the Davidson County Sheriff's Department, Jerry Clark, was terminated for dishonesty after filing reports alleging he was attacked during training, which an investigation found to be exaggerated. An administrative law judge initially ordered his reinstatement with a ten-day suspension, a decision adopted by the Civil Service Commission. However, the Metropolitan Government sought judicial review, and the chancery court reversed the Commission's decision, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's ruling, concluding that the ALJ's findings were not backed by material evidence and remanded the case to the Commission for a determination of appropriate disciplinary action.

Police MisconductTermination of EmploymentDishonestyAdministrative ReviewJudicial PrecedentCivil Service LawSubstantial Evidence RuleWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRetaliation AllegationsDue Process Rights
References
7
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. 03-00-00063-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. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
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. C.A. No. 02A01-9701-CH-00024
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

Eileen Smith v. Shelby Co. Government

Eileen Smith, a social worker, sued Shelby County Government for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a right wrist injury while assisting a patient. The Chancery Court of Shelby County found the injury compensable, awarding Smith 60% permanent vocational disability to her right arm. Shelby County Government appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of a work-related injury and the extent of the disability award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section at Jackson, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence, including reports from Dr. E. B. Wilkerson and lay testimony, supported the finding that the injury arose out of employment. The court also upheld the disability rating, considering Smith's job skills, education, and the impact of her injury on her employment, as well as Dr. Neil Aranov's testimony regarding a work-related psychological adjustment disorder.

Workers' CompensationVocational DisabilityPermanent DisabilityWrist InjurySocial WorkerOrthopedic SurgeryPsychological ConditionMedical ImprovementScope of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
2
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. 03-03-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Anderson-Clayton Bros. Funeral Home, Inc. Restland of Dallas, Inc. Restland Funeral Home Singing Hills Funeral Home, Inc. Laurel Land Funeral Home of Forth Worth, Inc. Blue Bonnet Hills Funeral Home, Inc. And Blue Bonnet Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the Texas franchise tax treatment of earnings from out-of-state investments made by Texas prepaid funeral benefits trusts. The Appellants, a group of affiliated funeral homes (Anderson-Clayton), argued these earnings should be considered out-of-state receipts for franchise tax apportionment. The Comptroller of Public Accounts contended they were Texas receipts, leading to a higher tax bill for Anderson-Clayton. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the 'accounting methods' provision of the tax code did not dictate the sourcing of receipts, and under the 'location of the payor' rule, the Texas-domiciled trusts were deemed the payors, making the investment income Texas receipts.

Franchise TaxInvestment EarningsPrepaid Funeral TrustsTax ApportionmentTexas Tax CodeLocation of Payor RuleSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAccounting MethodsEarned Surplus
References
82
Showing 1-10 of 1,695 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