Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff's decedent, a copilot for a Delaware Corporation, died in a plane crash in Alabama. His employment contract specified governance by Pennsylvania law, including its Workmen’s Compensation Act. The plaintiff, the decedent's widow and executrix, filed a negligence suit in Tennessee. The defendant asserted the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act as a defense, prompting the plaintiff to file a motion to strike this defense, arguing for the application of Alabama law due to the accident's location and public policy. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the decedent was a Pennsylvania employee under the Act, which was not contrary to Alabama's public policy, and thus, the Act must be recognized under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation ActConflict of LawsFull Faith and Credit ClauseMotion to StrikeEmployment Contract DisputeWorkplace FatalityChoice of LawPublic Policy DebateInterstate EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 03, 2006

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

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

Case No. 44 S.W.3d 554

Regular Panel Decision

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

Justice Baker's dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to uphold waivers of workers' compensation claims on public policy grounds directly contradicts the intent and established public policies of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent emphasizes that the Act created a comprehensive system to encourage employer participation in workers' compensation insurance and ensure adequate redress for all injured employees. Baker asserts that the Court improperly defers to the Legislature on a matter where legislative intent, prioritizing employee protection and encouraging subscription, is clear. The dissent concludes that such waivers are void as they undermine the statutory scheme, and their acceptance by employees should not render them enforceable.

Workers' Compensation ActPublic PolicyWaiversEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationContract LawDissenting OpinionTexas LawCommon Law Defenses

References

Case No. 03-02-00246-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 26, 2004

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

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

Case No. 03-03-00428-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 23, 2005

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 19, 2005

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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

Case No. 03-19-00362-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 22, 2020

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

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

Case No. 03-11-00072-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 06, 2014

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

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

This Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion addresses an appeal from summary judgments granted to the defendant, Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation (WTCI), in an age discrimination and retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, Earlynn Schubert, Cynthia Lowry, and Barbara Dadswell alleged age-based discrimination and wrongful termination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert on their age discrimination claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's stated reasons for termination. For Barbara Dadswell, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on her age discrimination claim but reversed and remanded her retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that a jury question existed regarding the reasonableness of her belief that copying a Nielsen Report was an illegal activity violating public policy. The case underscores the standards for summary judgment in employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting

References

Showing 1-10 of 6,339 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 03, 2006

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

Arbitration AwardPublic PolicyEducation LawSpecial Education ServicesCollective BargainingStipulationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewSchool District ObligationsLabor Dispute

References

Case No. 44 S.W.3d 554

Regular Panel Decision

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

Workers' Compensation ActPublic PolicyWaiversEmployer LiabilityEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationContract LawDissenting OpinionTexas LawCommon Law Defenses

References

Case No. 03-02-00246-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 26, 2004

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

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law

References

Case No. 03-03-00428-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 23, 2005

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law

References

Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 19, 2005

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law

References

Case No. 03-19-00362-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 22, 2020

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

Public Information ActAttorney-Client PrivilegeIndependent InvestigationAdmissions PoliciesSummary JudgmentDisclosureWaiverLawyer's RepresentativeEducation RecordsFERPA

References

Case No. 03-11-00072-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 06, 2014

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

References

110

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting

References

Showing 1-10 of 6,339 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.