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

Sierra Club v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk appealed the dismissal of their suit for judicial review against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the plaintiffs' failure to serve citation on all parties of record as required by specific Texas codes and relying on the *Mingus v. Wadley* doctrine. The appellate court noted that after the trial court's judgment, the Texas Supreme Court in *Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi* overruled *Mingus*, stating that statutory prerequisites for a cause of action are not jurisdictional. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the failure to serve citation on all parties of record did not constitute a jurisdictional defect. The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial ReviewSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCitation ServiceTexas Appellate CourtsAppellate ProcedureEnvironmental LawPermit ApplicationLegal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resource Savings Ass'n v. Neary

Resource Savings Association appealed a summary judgment granted to Michael L. Neary and John H. Lang, II. The core dispute involved a promissory note from Dimension-Lang Georgia Partners, guaranteed by Neary and Lang, which defaulted. Resource foreclosed on Georgia property but dismissed a Georgia confirmation proceeding, then sued Neary and Lang in Texas. Neary and Lang argued Georgia law, which requires foreclosure confirmation for deficiency suits, should apply, thus barring Resource's claim. Resource contended Texas law should govern as per the guaranty's choice-of-law clause, arguing the Texas suit was against guarantors, not the property. The court determined Texas law applied, reversed the summary judgment in favor of Neary and Lang, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Choice of LawConflicts of LawGuarantyPromissory NoteForeclosureDeficiency JudgmentGeorgia LawTexas LawSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
25
Case No. NO. 03-99-00880-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2000

Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

The Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk, environmental groups, appealed a judgment from the District Court of Travis County. Their suit sought judicial review of a permit granted by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to TXI Operations, L.P. for burning solid waste. The trial court had dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on the plaintiffs' failure to serve citation on all parties of record within the statutory period, citing the Mingus v. Wadley doctrine. However, subsequent to the trial court's decision, the Texas Supreme Court overruled Mingus in Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, clarifying that such statutory prerequisites affect the right to relief, not subject-matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureTexas LawService of ProcessCivil ProcedureHealth and Safety Code
References
6
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
Case No. 03-02-00027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

Robert L. Collins v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and Cal-Maine Partnership, Ltd.

Robert Collins, an organic farmer, opposed a permit application by B&N Poultry (later Cal-Maine Partnership, Ltd.) to change its waste-management system to wet, utilizing clay-lined lagoons. Collins claimed his property, groundwater, and air quality would be adversely affected and sought a contested case hearing from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The Commission denied his request, determining he was unlikely to be affected and the proposed system was environmentally superior. Collins sought judicial review in a Travis County district court, which affirmed the Commission's order. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision and that Collins was afforded due process.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingDue ProcessContested Case HearingWaste ManagementPoultry FarmWater CodeTexas Appeals
References
10
Case No. 04-13-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2014

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee of Bettye Baker Brown Trust, U/w, F/B/O William David Deiss, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/w, F/B/O Diane Elizabeth Mysliweic, Bettye Baker Brown Trust U/W/, F/B/O Paula Jane Roberts, Dorothy Baker Shaw 1966 Trust, Baker E. v. Prize Energy Resources, L.P., Prize Operating Company, Gruy Petroleum Management Company N/K/A Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Magnum Hunter Resources, Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., Pat R. Rutherford Jr., Michael G. Rutherford, Rut

This case, heard by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, addresses a dispute over the termination of an oil, gas, and mineral lease and a joint operating agreement (JOA) in McMullen County. Appellants, led by Bank of America as trustee, contested a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Prize Energy Resources, concerning the alleged fraudulent inducement of a ratification agreement. The core issues involved the Bank's claims of waiver, ratification, quasi-estoppel, and adverse possession, all stemming from the belief that the Baker Lease terminated due to a cessation of production. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the Bank's knowledge of fraud and its intent to waive its claims, as well as the applicability of quasi-estoppel and adverse possession. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Oil and gas leaseJoint operating agreementMineral interestsLease terminationFraudulent inducementRatificationWaiverQuasi-estoppelAdverse possessionSummary judgment
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. 04-12-00202-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2012

John Jurasin v. Dillon Resources, Inc. D/B/A Sunset Transportation, Inc.

John Jurasin, an experienced truck driver for Dillon Resources, Inc. d/b/a Sunset Transportation, Inc., sustained a back injury while removing a wet tarp without handles from a flatbed trailer. He sued Dillon Resources, alleging a breach of duty to provide a safe workplace and necessary equipment. The trial court granted a no-evidence motion for summary judgment in Dillon's favor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Dillon Resources had no duty to warn Jurasin of an already appreciated hazard, nor was there evidence that tarps with handles were necessary safety equipment or standard in the industry. The court also noted that Jurasin's injury resulted from performing work employees in that position have always done.

Workers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplaceSummary Judgment AppealBack InjuryFlatbed TrailerTarp RemovalNegligence ClaimTexas Labor Law
References
9
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,225 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