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. 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. 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
Case No. No. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 03-13-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2015

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Ryan, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Glenn Hegar, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, challenging a trial court's ruling that declared certain subsections of Comptroller's rule 3.325 (from 2011 and 2013) invalid. Ryan, LLC, a tax services firm and the original plaintiff, argued that these rules imposed excessive burdens, such as requiring detailed transactional information and supporting documentation at the initial filing of sales and use tax refund claims, which went beyond the requirements of the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the rules' requirements for initial transactional detail and supporting documentation were illegal and invalid because they exceeded the statutory provisions and conflicted with the broader Tax Code scheme. However, the court reversed parts of the judgment, declaring other provisions of the rules facially valid where they aligned with statutory language. The decision largely supports Ryan's position regarding undue administrative burdens on refund claims.

Tax LawAdministrative LawRule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRefund ClaimsTexas Tax CodeComptroller of Public AccountsSales and Use TaxAppellate Court
References
41
Case No. 03-10-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. (EEM) filed a tax refund suit against the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas, seeking to recover use tax paid on an airplane. EEM argued for an exemption under tax code section 151.328(a)(4), claiming the aircraft was purchased for registration and use outside Texas. The district court denied EEM's motion and granted the Comptroller's summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the exemption applies only to aircraft purchased in Texas and does not create a use-tax exemption. Consequently, EEM was found not entitled to the aircraft exemption.

TexasTax LawUse TaxSales TaxAircraft ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewTax RefundComptroller of Public Accounts
References
33
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. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 892 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