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. 03-02-00246-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. 03-11-00072-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. 3-90-281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham regarding Fidelity's liability as a bonding agent for attorney's fees. The dispute originated from an earlier case where a newly formed hospital district in Lee County was deemed unconstitutional, and its trustees were found to have violated the Open Meetings Act, leading to an award of attorney's fees against them. As the hospital district had no assets, Concerned Taxpayers sued Fidelity as the surety on the trustees' public official bonds. The trial court held Fidelity liable for the attorney's fees from the prior case but denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, ruling that public official bonds broadly cover damages, including attorney's fees resulting from the unfaithful performance of duties, and that the trustees' Open Meetings Act violations constituted such unfaithful performance. The court also found Concerned Taxpayers to be incidental beneficiaries in the current suit, thus not entitled to attorney's fees.

Public Official BondsSurety LiabilityAttorney's Fees RecoveryDeclaratory Judgment ActOpen Meetings Act ViolationDe Facto Officer DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment AppealHospital District Formation
References
17
Case No. 03-14-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devvy Kidd John Kidd M. J. Shadden John Cole R.M.Daiey Tracy Stephens Patricia Stroyick Dorothy Morrow Charles Morrow Amy Williams David Williams Norman Kuehn Elizabeth Theiss Rebecca Gutierrez Marie Nugent Steve G. Crutchfield v. Texas Public Utility Commission AEP Texas Central Company AEP Texas North Company CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Texas-New Mexico Power Company And Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC

This brief concerns an appeal from the 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas, initiated by Devvy Kidd et al. against the Public Utility Commission of Texas and several utility companies. The appellants are challenging the Commission's denial of their request for a public hearing related to advanced metering technology, specifically in Project No. 40404, where they sought rulemaking proceedings regarding smart meters. The appellees argue that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such appeals and that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) only requires public hearings when a rule is actually adopted, which did not occur in Project No. 40404. They contend that the Commission did seriously consider appellants' concerns and provided opportunities for participation in other related proceedings where rules were adopted, such as Project No. 41111, for which the appellants failed to appeal the adopted rule. The appellees seek to affirm the trial court’s order granting their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the cause.

Smart MetersRadiofrequency EmissionsSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility CommissionAppellate LawJudicial ReviewRegulatory ComplianceTexas LawEnergy Policy
References
16
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
Apr 03, 2006

Lawrence Teachers Ass'n v. Lawrence Public Schools

This case concerns an appeal by the Lawrence Teachers Association (petitioner) challenging the denial of their petition to confirm an arbitration award. The arbitration award mandated Lawrence Public Schools (respondent) to designate members of the petitioner’s bargaining unit to provide special education services outside the school district's geographical boundaries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, concluding the award was unenforceable. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the arbitration award violated public policy as it contravened Education Law former § 3602-c (2). This statute required the school district to contract with the school district where the nonpublic school attended by the pupil was located for such services. The court emphasized that an arbitrator's award cannot stand if it is contrary to well-defined statutory law and public policy.

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute
References
4
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. 03-21-00356-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

RWE Renewables Americas, LLC and TX Hereford Wind, LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This direct appeal challenges an order issued by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) concerning scarcity pricing in the wholesale electricity market during extreme weather events, specifically Winter Storm Uri. Appellants, RWE Renewables Americas, LLC and TX Hereford Wind, LLC, argued that the PUC's order constituted an unauthorized "competition rule" and violated the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the PUC's order, which approved ERCOT's Nodal Protocol Revision Request 1081 (NPRR 1081) to effectively set market clearing prices for electricity at the high system-wide offer cap during load-shed events, exceeded the Commission's statutory authority. The court reiterated that the Legislature intended electricity prices to be determined by market forces, not by government regulators. Additionally, the court concluded that the Commission failed to substantially comply with the mandatory APA rulemaking procedures regarding public notice, public participation, and the required contents of the agency's adopting order. Consequently, the Commission's Order was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Electricity Market RegulationScarcity PricingAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPublic Utility CommissionERCOT ProtocolsWholesale ElectricityDirect AppealTexas Utilities Code
References
23
Case No. 03-04-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Kenneth Garrett v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Thomas A. Davis, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Travis County and Patricia Michele Padron, Individually and in Her Official Capacity

Kenneth Garrett, convicted of indecent exposure, was classified as a "high-risk" sex offender, triggering public notification requirements. Garrett sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), its director Thomas A. Davis, Travis County, and community supervision officer Patricia Michele Padron, alleging improper classification and false public disclosures about a "second conviction." The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants regarding the "high-risk" classification, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on his criminal conviction and privacy rights claims. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning Garrett's common-law tort claims (defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress) against Davis in his individual capacity, finding Davis failed to establish statutory immunity against claims for misstating Garrett's conviction history.

Sex Offender RegistrationHigh-Risk ClassificationIndecent ExposureCivil RightsDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentCollateral AttackStatutory ImmunityQualified Immunity
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 9,989 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