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. 03-19-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy v. University of Texas System

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring The University of Texas System regarding the disclosure of documents under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The documents pertained to an independent investigation by Kroll Associates, Inc. into UT System's admissions policies. The district court had granted summary judgment, finding the documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the Court of Appeals determined that Kroll was not acting as a "lawyer's representative." Thus, the attorney-client privilege did not apply, and the documents, after specific redactions, were ruled to be public information subject to disclosure. The summary judgment of the trial court was reversed and rendered.

Public Information ActAttorney-Client PrivilegeIndependent InvestigationAdmissions PoliciesSummary JudgmentDisclosureWaiverLawyer's RepresentativeEducation RecordsFERPA
References
18
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
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. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Case No. 3-92-522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1993

Lane Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association

Appellant Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and others for wrongful termination and various torts after his employment as Executive Director was terminated. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery, as he was also under criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The district court dismissed his civil suit for failure to comply with discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause without applying the Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis test for offensive-use waiver of privilege, and also found the dismissal to be an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional privilege and the availability of less burdensome remedies like abatement.

Fifth Amendment privilegeSelf-incriminationDiscovery sanctionsAbatement of civil actionWrongful terminationDue processOffensive use waiverTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 215Appellate reviewCivil procedure
References
24
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Ass'n

Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and other appellees for wrongful termination, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and tortious interference with business. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery due to a pending criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The trial court denied his requests for abatement and a protective order, subsequently dismissing his civil suit for non-compliance with discovery. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Denton did not waive his privilege by 'offensive use' under the *Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis* test. The court also concluded that dismissal was an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional rights, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationDiscovery AbuseSanctionsCivil ProcedureDue ProcessEmployment LawWaiverAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Case No. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

David Sloan Federal Public Defender's Office, Lubbock, Texas Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety Sheriff Cliff Harris, Pecos County Pecos County Sheriff's Department v. John Alan Conroy

Steven C. McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), appealed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by John Alan Conroy. Conroy, a pro se inmate, sought electronic recordings of an interrogation related to a federal child pornography conviction and $20,000,000 in damages for alleged constitutional rights violations under the Texas Constitution. McCraw argued sovereign immunity barred Conroy's claims for monetary damages. The Court of Appeals construed Conroy's petition as a suit for a writ of mandamus under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) regarding the disclosure of the recordings, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the denial of McCraw's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the mandamus action but modified the order to dismiss Conroy's claim for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPublic Information ActMandamusDue ProcessTrial Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodePro Se LitigantDeclaratory Judgment
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,416 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