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. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. 03-15-00814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order concerning a plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant A. I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.) challenged a 2013 compliance history rating assigned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) and its Executive Director, Richard Hyde, which classified A.I. as an 'unsatisfactory performer'. A.I. argued that an agreed final judgment (AFJ) used by the Commission should not have been considered due to its specific terms and that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious. A.I. also sought declaratory relief under various acts and alleged a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals determined that A.I.'s suit for judicial review was moot because the 2013 rating had been superseded. The court further held that A.I.'s claims for declaratory relief lacked a justiciable controversy and its breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the dismissal of the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Compliance HistoryEnvironmental RegulationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMootness DoctrineSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractTexas Water CodeTexas Health and Safety Code
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Phillips Petroleum Company appealed the district court's affirmation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) decision to grant nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions allowances to Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SCLP). Phillips contended that its ownership of eight boilers entitled it to these allowances, while SCLP argued entitlement based on its operational control of the boilers within a cogeneration facility at Phillips's refinery. The TCEQ had previously issued an air quality permit to SCLP, requiring SCLP to demonstrate operational control over the boilers for site-wide emissions netting. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the TCEQ's allocation to SCLP was reasonable. This was because the boilers were considered part of SCLP's "site" under both air quality and Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) regulations, primarily due to SCLP's established operational control.

Environmental LawEmissions AllowancesNOxAir Quality PermitOperational ControlSite-wide NettingRegulatory InterpretationAdministrative LawTexas Commission on Environmental QualityCogeneration Facility
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Phillips Petroleum Company v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership

Phillips Petroleum Company appealed a district court decision affirming the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) grant of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions allowances to Sweeny Cogeneration Limited Partnership (SCLP). Phillips argued it was entitled to the allowances as the boilers' owner, while SCLP claimed entitlement due to operational control within its cogeneration facility at Phillips's refinery. The Commission and district court allocated the allowances to SCLP, emphasizing SCLP's operational control established during a prior air quality permitting process for emissions netting. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Commission's decision reasonable given the similar 'control' criteria in both the air quality permit and Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) regulations, and deferring to the agency's interpretation of its complex rules.

Emissions allowancesNOxair quality permitcogenerationMass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT)operational controlsite-wide emissions nettingregulatory interpretationadministrative lawenvironmental law
References
26
Case No. 10-19-00422-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Mary Sue Sauceda v. Quality Motors D/B/A Quality Automotive

This case involves a negligent-entrustment claim against Quality Motors by Mary Sue Sauceda. Sauceda appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Quality Motors, arising from a head-on collision involving a vehicle sold by Quality Motors to Danna Zertuche-Yanez. Sauceda argued that Quality Motors negligently entrusted the vehicle because it retained the certificate of title. The appellate court found that Quality Motors successfully rebutted the presumption of ownership, as it had delivered possession and control of the vehicle to Zertuche-Yanez, retaining only naked legal title as a security interest. Therefore, Quality Motors did not own or control the vehicle at the time of the accident to be held liable for negligent entrustment, and the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

negligent entrustmentcar dealershipsummary judgmentvehicle ownershipsecurity interestcertificate of titleTexas appellate courtmotor vehicle retail installment contracthead-on collisionliability
References
13
Case No. 03-07-00720-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2009

COM'N ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY v. Kelsoe

This case involves Edwin B. Kelsoe's application for a solid-waste landfill permit, which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) deemed incomplete and returned. Kelsoe challenged this decision, arguing his petition was timely filed and that TCEQ lacked authority. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, found that Kelsoe's petition for judicial review was not filed within the statutory thirty-day deadline as required by the Water Code and Health & Safety Code. The court concluded that neither Kelsoe's motion to overturn nor his constitutional due-process claims extended the filing period. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed Kelsoe's suit for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessJurisdictionLandfill PermitEnvironmental RegulationStatutory InterpretationTexas Water CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeDue Process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arteaga v. ISS Quality Service

Claimant, a maintenance worker hired to replace striking employees of ISS Quality Service, was assaulted and sustained injuries. A dispute arose regarding whether claimant was an employee of ISS or Contemporary Graphics Group (CGG), a temporary staffing agency. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found claimant solely employed by CGG, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, concluding claimant was a general employee of CGG and a special employee of ISS, apportioning liability equally. ISS and its carrier appealed the special employment designation as irrational, but the Board's decision was affirmed.

Employer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyAssault in EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. Docket No. 2020-01-0787; State File No. 108369-2019
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2022

Holt, John v. Quality Floor Coverings, LLC

This appeal addresses requests for admissions under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 36. The employee, John Dickerson Holt, III, failed to timely respond to the employer's, Quality Floor Coverings, LLC, requests. The trial court denied the employer's motion to deem the statements admitted, citing non-compliance with a regulation requiring a good-faith effort to resolve discovery disputes. The Appeals Board reversed this decision in part, clarifying that Rule 36 is self-executing and a good-faith certification is not required when no timely response is served. The Board affirmed that the admitted requests are conclusively established and remanded the case for the trial court to further consider the remaining requests.

Discovery DisputeRequests for AdmissionsProcedural ErrorWorkers' Compensation AppealRule 36Self-executing RuleTrial Court DiscretionRemandTennessee LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc.

Kimberly Dawn Harman and her husband sued Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and Federal Civil Rights Acts, also claiming outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Worker’s Compensation Act (TWCA). The chancellor initially found an implied repeal of the TWCA's exclusive remedy concerning THRA claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the outcome that the plaintiffs' claims under the THRA were not barred but rejected the chancellor's reasoning of implied repeal. The appellate court distinguished the purposes of the two acts, holding that THRA claims for non-physical injuries like humiliation and emotional distress are separate from physical injuries covered by TWCA, and thus, not barred by its exclusive remedy.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActWorker's Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionImplied RepealStatutory ConstructionEmotional DistressLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 393 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