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. 01-15-00266-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2015

Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.

This case involves Unocal Pipeline Company appealing trial court decisions. Unocal sought a declaratory judgment to transfer its dismantlement, removal, or restoration (DR&R) obligations for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) to BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. when Unocal discontinues operations. The trial court denied this claim, ruling that the TAPS Agreement does not transfer these DR&R obligations. Additionally, Unocal's claim regarding Net Salvage Value was dismissed without prejudice by the trial court, deeming the issue not ripe for determination. The case highlights contractual obligations related to joint ventures in pipeline operations and the financial burdens associated with pipeline dismantlement and restoration.

pipelineTrans-Alaska Pipeline SystemTAPS AgreementDR&R obligationsdeclaratory judgmentcontract disputeoil and gas industryenvironmental liabilitysummary judgmentappellate review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Mustang Pipeline Co. (Mustang) and Driver Pipeline Co. (Driver) regarding a pipeline construction project. Mustang sued Driver for failing to complete work timely, while Driver counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The jury initially found both parties breached, but the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that an express jury finding on materiality is not required when 'time is of the essence,' determining Driver's breach was material as a matter of law. This discharged Mustang from its obligations, invalidating the wrongful termination claim. However, Mustang failed to provide sufficient evidence that its claimed damages were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Driver, rendered judgment that Driver take nothing, and reversed the award of attorney's fees to Driver, upholding the denial of damages to Mustang.

Breach of ContractMaterial BreachTime is of the EssenceWrongful TerminationContract DamagesReasonableness of CostsAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefenseJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. 06-00-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc.

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellant) and Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellee) concerning a pipeline construction project. Driver was contracted to build a pipeline but faced delays, leading Mustang to terminate the contract and hire another company. At trial, the jury found Driver breached the contract but also that Mustang was not justified in its termination. The trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Mustang's damage award, citing a lack of evidence for reasonable and necessary costs. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld the JNOV on Mustang's damages and sustained the jury's finding that Mustang's termination was unjustified, while Driver's appeal regarding a statutory mineral lien was not preserved for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDamagesReasonable and Necessary CostsMaterial BreachTermination of ContractFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
50
Case No. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Case No. 01-02-01056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

PG&E Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District & Ramex Construction Co., Inc.

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). PG&E sought damages for pipeline displacement caused by HCFCD's drainage excavation project. The court determined that the Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive HCFCD's sovereign immunity for tort claims, as the damage was caused by an independent contractor. While the Texas Water Code waived immunity for breach of contract, PG&E was not an intended third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, it reversed and dismissed without prejudice the inverse condemnation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPipeline DamageDrainage Project
References
46
Case No. 10-08-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2010

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Camp Cooley, LTD

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. appealed the trial court's judgment that granted Camp Cooley, Ltd.'s partial motion for summary judgment. Enbridge argued the trial court erred in finding that Camp Cooley established an oral agreement on damages for easements, asserting it violated the statute of frauds and was unenforceable. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo. It found that the trial court erred by determining the oral agreement did not violate the statute of frauds and was enforceable. The court concluded that Enbridge satisfied its burden that the parties were unable to agree on the amount of damages. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate amount of damages.

CondemnationEasementStatute of FraudsSummary JudgmentReal PropertyContract DisputeEminent DomainOral AgreementDamagesAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. and Mike Latta v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, Llc

This case addresses whether a landowner can legally challenge a CO2 pipeline owner's claim of eminent domain power, granted via a common-carrier permit from the Railroad Commission. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC, secured such a permit by simply checking a box on a form, prompting landowners Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., and Mike Latta to contest the pipeline's legitimacy as a public utility. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that merely registering as a common carrier does not automatically confer eminent domain power or prevent landowners from seeking judicial review. The Court established a new standard, requiring pipeline companies to demonstrate a 'reasonable probability' that their pipeline will genuinely serve the public by transporting gas for external customers, not solely for the owner or its affiliates. Concluding that Denbury Green failed to demonstrate this public use as a matter of law, the Court overturned the appellate court's decision and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Eminent DomainCommon Carrier StatusCO2 PipelineProperty RightsPublic Use DoctrinePrivate UseRailroad CommissionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Natural Resources Code
References
21
Case No. 02-19-00042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Atmos Energy Corporation v. Charles L. Paul

This appeal involves a dispute over the interpretation of a 1960 easement agreement that grants a right-of-way for a grantee to construct, maintain, and operate pipelines over and through 137 acres of property. Appellee Charles L. Paul currently owns a portion of this property. Atmos Energy Corporation, the current owner of the easement, sued Paul for violating the easement agreement after he denied Atmos access to construct a new pipeline. The probate court granted summary judgment in Paul’s favor, rendering judgment that Atmos take nothing. The appellate court reversed, finding that the unambiguous easement agreement created a multiple pipeline blanket easement that does not require additional pipelines to be laid along the same path as the first, and that Paul did not conclusively establish that the new pipeline unreasonably burdened his property. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Easement AgreementPipeline EasementBlanket EasementMultiple PipelinesContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentProperty RightsServient EstateDominant EstateReasonable Necessity Test
References
66
Case No. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Andrew Sansom Heinz Stefan Roesch Bee Spring, Ltd. Hays County And City of Kyle v. Texas Railroad Commission

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Driver Pipeline Co. v. Mustang Pipeline Co.

This is an appeal stemming from a breach of contract lawsuit between Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. and Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. Mustang initially sued Driver for breach of contract after Driver failed to complete a pipeline project on schedule due to weather delays, leading Mustang to hire another contractor. Driver countersued for wrongful termination. A jury found Driver in breach but also found Mustang unjustified in terminating the contract, awarding damages to both parties. The trial court, however, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) in favor of Driver and its insurer, Seaboard Surety Company, disallowing Mustang's damages. Both Driver and Mustang appealed. Driver appealed the denial of a statutory mineral lien, while Mustang challenged the j.n.o.v. on damages and the jury's finding of unjustified termination. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the j.n.o.v. because Mustang failed to provide evidence that its completion costs were "reasonable and necessary," and also upheld the jury's finding of unjustified termination as the breach was not determined to be material.

Breach of ContractPipeline ConstructionJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (J.N.O.V.)Contract TerminationMaterial BreachDamages CalculationReasonable and Necessary CostsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTime is of the Essence Clause
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 126 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