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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. 03-03-00154-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2003

City of Marshall and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Formerly Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) v. City of Uncertain Caddo Lake Area Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Greater Caddo Lake Association Caddo Lake Institute John T. Echols And Barry L. Bennick

The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a district court's decision regarding a water permit amendment sought by the City of Marshall. Marshall's application to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) involved an interbasin water transfer and the authorization for industrial water use. The TCEQ approved the amendment without a contested-case hearing, which the district court reversed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling that an evidentiary hearing was necessary for the industrial use amendment and that the executive director lacked authority to approve it without such a hearing. However, the court reversed the district court's finding that the interbasin transfer also required notice and a hearing, determining it fell under a statutory exemption.

Environmental LawWater RightsInterbasin TransferIndustrial UseContested Case HearingAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTexas Water Code
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danciger Oil & Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission

The Danciger Oil & Refining Company sought to enjoin an order by the Texas Railroad Commission limiting oil production in the Panhandle district, claiming the orders were void. The company's temporary injunction, which had been granted, was subsequently dissolved, leading to this appeal. The court considered seven grounds of attack, including claims that the commission lacked statutory authority, used an unauthorized standard of "market demand," and violated the Fourteenth Amendment or burdened interstate commerce. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the commission's orders valid under its broad powers to prevent waste of natural resources, and that using market demand was permissible when it directly related to preventing physical waste.

Oil & Gas LawRegulatory ComplianceWaste PreventionProration OrdersMarket DemandConstitutional LawDue ProcessInterstate CommerceAdministrative AgenciesTexas
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 03-14-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2015

CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// Cross-Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T

This brief argues that the Public Utility Commission (Commission) erroneously issued an advisory opinion concerning amendments to federal regulations (47 C.F.R. 1.1409(e)) that took effect after the relevant billing period of 2005-2010. CPS Energy contends that these findings were premature, advisory, and beyond the Commission's jurisdictional scope. Additionally, CPS Energy asserts that the Commission's interpretation of Utilities Code § 54.204(c) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power to a federal agency. The brief urges the Third Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission's contested findings (Findings of Fact 84-87 and Conclusions of Law 26 and 27) and remand the case for an order consistent with the court's opinion.

JurisdictionAdvisory OpinionPole Attachment RatesFederal Communications CommissionPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationUnconstitutional DelegationRipenessAppellate Procedure
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Fowler

The case involves twelve airline plaintiffs, including Mohawk, American, and TWA, seeking a declaratory judgment against the New York State Commission for Human Rights. The plaintiffs challenged the Commission's jurisdiction to apply New York's age discrimination provisions (Article 15 of the Executive Law) to their stewardesses operating in interstate and foreign air transportation. They argued that the state law unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce, was preempted by federal acts like the Railway Labor Act and Federal Aviation Act, and that the age discrimination provisions did not apply to individuals under 40. District Judge Frederick Van Pelt Bryan dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, the issues were not ripe for judicial review, and federal court abstention was appropriate given the unsettled state law questions and the potential for disrupting state administrative processes.

Age DiscriminationInterstate CommerceFederal PreemptionDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewAbstention DoctrineAirline IndustryStewardessesHuman Rights Commission
References
54
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. 03-03-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts/Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a cross-appeal stemming from a workers' compensation claim by Leonard D. Watts, who sought lifetime income benefits for injuries sustained as a truck driver. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (appeals panel) initially reversed a hearing officer's decision and awarded Watts benefits, but this decision was later set aside by a Travis County district court. In this appeal, the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (Texas Mutual) and the Commission challenged the district court's ruling. The Court of Appeals addressed arguments regarding the appeals panel's statutory authority for factual-sufficiency review and the interpretation of "issue" under the labor code, including legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court, thereby affirming the decision of the Commission's appeals panel which granted Watts lifetime income benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCross-AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCausationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,470 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