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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. CA 13-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Michelle Pulver commenced a personal injury action against the City of Fulton Department of Public Works and the City of Fulton after she tripped in a hole covered by plywood near a sidewalk. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing lack of prior written notice. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability, alleging the City's affirmative negligence. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding no prior written notice but potential factual issues regarding affirmative negligence. The Appellate Division modified the order by granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court held that the prior written notice requirement applied and that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the City engaged in affirmative acts of negligence by creating the defective condition or placing the plywood.

Personal InjuryMunicipal LiabilitySidewalk DefectPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPlywood CoverHole HazardOswego County
References
9
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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. 03-21-00356-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

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. E2009-01083-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2010

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Calvin Benn, an employee of Knox County Schools, sustained hip and shoulder injuries after slipping on ice at work. He filed a lawsuit against the Public Building Authority (PBA) and the City of Knoxville under the Government Tort Liability Act, alleging negligence for the dangerous condition. Following a bench trial, the court found that Benn failed to prove constructive notice of the ice by a preponderance of the evidence, issuing a judgment for the defendants. Benn appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. The appellate court concluded that Benn did not establish constructive notice through any of the available legal theories: causation, passage of time, or common occurrence.

Slip and FallGovernmental Tort Liability ActConstructive NoticePremises LiabilitySovereign ImmunityAppellate ReviewNegligenceIce HazardKnox CountyShoulder Injury
References
15
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 5,995 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