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. 03-03-00550-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. 03-11-00072-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. 03-10-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. v. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas

Energy Education of Montana, Inc. (EEM) filed a tax refund suit against the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas, seeking to recover use tax paid on an airplane. EEM argued for an exemption under tax code section 151.328(a)(4), claiming the aircraft was purchased for registration and use outside Texas. The district court denied EEM's motion and granted the Comptroller's summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the exemption applies only to aircraft purchased in Texas and does not create a use-tax exemption. Consequently, EEM was found not entitled to the aircraft exemption.

TexasTax LawUse TaxSales TaxAircraft ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewTax RefundComptroller of Public Accounts
References
33
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
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. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

in Re Texas State Board of Public Accountancy

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge a district court's order that allowed discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants. The core legal question was whether general discovery procedures, typically used at the agency (trial) level, are permissible during judicial review of administrative decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court determined that while the APA allows for the introduction of evidence concerning procedural irregularities not reflected in the agency record, it does not authorize a second round of discovery at the district court level. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the scope of judicial review and its waiver of governmental immunity. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court erred by denying the Board's motion for a protective order and permitting discovery.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscovery LimitationsAgency AdjudicationProtective OrderGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. M2011-00410-SC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2012

Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities - Dissent

In the Supreme Court of Tennessee case, Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities, Justice Janice M. Holder issued a dissenting opinion on May 8, 2012, regarding a workers' compensation claim. The majority adopted Larson's four-element test, concluding that Mr. Mitchell's removal of his gloves constituted a willful failure to comply with safety rules, thereby denying him benefits. Justice Holder argued that willful misconduct necessitates more than negligence or recklessness, stressing that Mitchell believed he was in a safe zone at the time of the incident. She contended that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Mitchell's conduct was not willful, and expressed concern that the majority's test encourages the use of the willful misconduct defense in cases of mere negligence or bad judgment.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety RulesEmployee NegligenceEmployer DefensesTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting OpinionLarson's TestWorkplace SafetyInjury Compensation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,588 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