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. 14-07-00787-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2009

Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc and Dominion Resources, Inc v. Apache Corporation

This case concerns a business dispute over force majeure clauses in a natural-gas supply contract between Apache Corporation (seller) and Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. (VPEM), the purchaser. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Apache invoked force majeure and curtailed deliveries to VPEM, leading to a lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Apache, excusing its performance. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding deliveries to the Tennessee L-500 point, finding performance excused due to pipeline damage. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning the Transco-65 delivery point, identifying a factual dispute regarding whether Apache's 'gas supply' was genuinely lost, especially given its spot-market sales and disproportionate deliveries to other customers.

force majeurenatural gas contracthurricanessummary judgmentcontract interpretationreasonable efforts clausegas supplycommercial impracticabilityUCCTexas law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. v. Apache Corp.

This case involves a business dispute between Apache Corporation (seller) and Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. (VPEM, purchaser) regarding a natural-gas supply contract. Apache failed to deliver the agreed-upon quantity of natural gas in September and October 2005, citing force majeure due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The trial court granted summary judgment, excusing Apache's performance. On appeal, VPEM and Dominion Resources argued that Apache should have made alternate delivery arrangements for one location (Tennessee L-500) and that Apache had available gas supply for another undamaged location (Transco-65). The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Tennessee L-500, stating that the "reasonable efforts" clause did not require alternate delivery points. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding Transco-65, finding a fact issue existed as to whether Apache's "gas supply" was actually insufficient to meet its obligations.

Force MajeureNatural Gas ContractSupply Chain DisruptionHurricane KatrinaHurricane RitaSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationReasonable Efforts ClauseGas Supply DefinitionCommercial Impracticability
References
27
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. 03-01-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2001

Reliant Energy, Incorporated v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel And Steering Committees for the Cities Served by TXU Electric and Central Power and Light Company

This case involves a direct appeal where Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Appellant) challenged the Public Utility Commission of Texas's (the Commission) price-to-beat rules. Reliant argued that these rules failed to ensure an initial fuel factor above market costs and that the Commission erred in excluding Provider of Last Resort (POLR) customers from market share calculations. Additionally, Reliant contended that the Commission's rule 25.41 violated the reasoned justification requirement of the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, upheld the price-to-beat regulations, concluding that the Commission acted within its authorized powers, and its decisions regarding the fuel factor, POLR customers, and reasoned justification were valid and consistent with the legislative intent to balance fostering competition and providing customer rate reductions during the transition to a competitive electricity market.

Electricity MarketDeregulationPublic Utility CommissionPrice-to-Beat RulesFuel FactorRetail Electric ProvidersMarket CompetitionAdministrative LawReasoned JustificationStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. E2015-02226-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2016

Sandra Clark v. Christopher Powers

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an automobile accident claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to non-compliance with service of process rules. Plaintiffs, Sandra and Sandy Clark, and defendant Christopher Powers's insurer, The General, had an agreement to defer service during settlement talks. Powers's underinsured motorist carrier, Allstate, later 'fronted' The General's policy limit to protect its subrogation rights. After the limitations period, Powers and Allstate moved for dismissal, but the trial court denied summary judgment based on equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that the agreement to forbear service was valid and ongoing, thus excusing the lack of formal service on Powers at the time the motion was filed.

Automobile AccidentStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessEquitable EstoppelSettlement NegotiationsUnderinsured Motorist CoverageSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grant v. Niagara Mohawk Power Co.

The claimant, a 60-year-old lineman, suffered a left leg and back injury in December 2000 while working for Niagara Mohawk Power Company, receiving initial benefits. He later underwent surgery for an unrelated right foot injury and subsequently retired in June 2002, receiving disability retirement benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, finding that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market because he lacked a finding of permanency and failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to prove a continuing disability causally related to his initial work injury. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that his retirement was due to the unrelated right foot injury and not the work-related back and leg injury, and that he failed to meet the burden of demonstrating a continuing disability for permanency classification.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewInjury CausationRight Foot InjuryBack InjuryLeft Leg Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,657 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