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. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; And City of Farmer's Branch, Texas // Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas v. Kelly Hancock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas // City of Coppell, Texas; City of Humble, Texas; City of DeSoto, Texas; City of Carrollton, Texas; City of Farmer's Branch, Texas; And City of Round Rock, Texas

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
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. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. 01-08-00296-CV; 01-08-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

in Re Texas Best Staff Leasing , Inc. D/B/A Alt-Source

Texas Best Staff Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Alt-Source (Alt-Source) sought relief from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration through an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus. Alt-Source argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel. The appellate court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the agreement and that Alt-Source had waived its argument under FAA section 5 by failing to present it to the trial court. Additionally, the court found the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) inapplicable to the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActWaiver DoctrineMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealJudicial DiscretionContract EnforceabilityAlternate Arbitrator SelectionDispute Resolution System
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Department of Transportation

Texas Logos, L.P. sued the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) after losing a contract for highway logo signs to Media Choice. Texas Logos alleged TxDOT exceeded its statutory authority by violating procurement statutes, including instances of fraud and conflicts of interest, and sought declarations under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) to void the contract and compel a contested-case proceeding for its protest. Texas Logos also challenged TxDOT's administrative protest rules under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The district court granted TxDOT's plea, dismissing Texas Logos's claims against TxDOT. On appeal, the court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that sovereign immunity barred Texas Logos's UDJA claims as they sought to invalidate an existing contract and control state action, which falls outside the scope of merely construing statutory authority. The court also affirmed the dismissal of APA claims regarding the protest rules, deeming them an abstract issue.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActProcurement LawCompetitive BiddingStatutory AuthorityUltra ViresContract DisputeGovernment Contracts
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Examiners v. Texas Medical Ass'n

The Texas Medical Association challenged a rule by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists that permits licensed marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to provide diagnostic assessments. The Medical Association argued that this rule is invalid because the Texas Occupations Code does not authorize MFTs to provide such assessments, reserving this authority primarily for medical licensees. The Therapists Board contended that their authorizing statute, the Texas Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists Act, permits evaluations which encompass diagnostic assessments, and that "diagnose" is a type of "evaluate" in this context. The Supreme Court of Texas agreed with the Therapists Board, concluding that the Therapists Act authorizes MFTs to provide diagnostic assessments as described in the rule, and the Medical Practice Act does not prohibit it. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment that the rule is valid.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentTexas Occupations CodeMedical Practice ActScope of PracticeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawProfessional LicensingMental Health DiagnosisRule Validity
References
42
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 11,935 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