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. 03-03-00550-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. 03-03-00428-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. 03-01-00195-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. 03-02-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This direct appeal concerns a challenge by Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company against the Public Utility Commission of Texas regarding a rule on stranded-cost recovery for deregulated electric utilities. Stranded costs are prudently incurred expenditures that became unrecoverable in a deregulated market. The utilities argued that the Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating portions of substantive rule 25.263, specifically regarding the "netting" of stranded costs with other true-up items like fuel balances, the application of a control premium in partial stock valuation, and the consideration of "other admitted evidence." The court held that the Commission exceeded its authority in these areas, reversing and remanding those portions of the rule, but affirmed other challenged provisions, including the timing of interest accrual and the duty of successor affiliates to reduce potential stranded costs.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsPublic Utility CommissionUtility RegulationAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityTrue-up ProceedingsSecuritizationFuel BalanceMarket Valuation
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
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
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. 03-22-00188-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. 518219
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2014

MatterofKentvLefkowitz

This case concerns an appeal filed by Susan M. Kent, President of the Public Employees Federation (PEF), against the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) and others. The dispute arose from a 25% wage reduction for seasonal track employees by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, prompting PEF to file an improper practice charge. PERB initially dismissed the charge, asserting that a prior side letter agreement satisfied the duty to negotiate. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding PERB's interpretation of the side letter agreement as sufficiently broad to encompass the unilateral wage reduction to be arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled that the agreement did not make it reasonably clear that the subject of the improper practice charge had been negotiated to completion. The case was remitted to PERB for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Public Employees FederationCollective Bargaining AgreementImproper Practice ChargePublic Employment Relations BoardWage ReductionSeasonal EmployeesDuty to NegotiateSide Letter AgreementCPLR Article 78Appellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliant Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

Reliant Energy, Incorporated challenged the Public Utility Commission of Texas's 'price-to-beat' rules, alleging they failed to ensure an initial fuel factor above market costs and improperly excluded Provider of Last Resort (POLR) customers from market share calculations. Reliant also contended that the Commission's rule 25.41 lacked reasoned justification. The court examined the Commission's authority under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court found that the Commission acted within its powers by not mandating an initial headroom and that excluding POLR customers was consistent with legislative intent to promote a competitive market. Finally, the court determined that the Commission provided adequate reasoned justification for its rule, overruling all of Reliant's issues.

CompetitionUtility RegulationElectricity MarketDeregulationPrice-to-BeatFuel FactorAdministrative LawRulemakingJudicial ReviewTexas Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 14,218 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