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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 03-98-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms/Accord Agriculture, Inc. v. Accord Agriculture, Inc./Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Texas Farm, Inc. And Dean Paul D/B/A Paul Farms

Accord Agriculture, Inc. (Accord) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), challenging the validity of rules established for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Accord contended that the TNRCC failed to meet the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned justification requirement and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating these rules. The trial court invalidated the CAFO rules due to the lack of reasoned justification but dismissed Accord's claims regarding a 'takings' violation and the constitutionality of the Right to Farm Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the CAFO rules and the dismissal of the 'takings' claim. However, it reversed the dismissal of Accord's challenge to the Right to Farm Act, remanding that specific issue for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActReasoned JustificationConcentrated Animal Feeding OperationsEnvironmental RegulationWater QualityAir QualityDeclaratory JudgmentStandingTakings ClaimRight to Farm Act
References
55
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. 05-04-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

Oscar Luis Lopez v. LA MADELEINE OF TEXAS

This case involves an appeal by Oscar Luis Lopez against La Madeleine of Texas, Inc., following a personal injury lawsuit where Lopez alleged negligence. During the trial, La Madeleine introduced a surveillance videotape and photos to impeach Lopez's testimony about his injuries, despite intentionally failing to disclose this evidence during discovery. The trial court admitted the evidence, leading to a jury finding of no negligence against La Madeleine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed the trial court's final judgment, ruling that the admission of the undisclosed evidence was an abuse of discretion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates exclusion without good cause or lack of unfair surprise/prejudice. The court found La Madeleine failed to meet its burden and the error probably caused an improper judgment. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Lopez's motion for monetary sanctions. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Discovery AbuseUndisclosed EvidenceTrial by AmbushTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6Unfair SurpriseUnfair PrejudiceAbuse of DiscretionEvidentiary RulingPersonal InjuryNegligence
References
36
Case No. 13-00-411-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Cullen Plumbing, Inc., D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. and Greg Cullen D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. v. Mark Duncan and Teresa Duncan

This case concerns an appeal from a default judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., and Greg Cullen, d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., brought by Mark and Teresa Duncan due to cracking in a pool deck. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment against Greg Cullen individually, finding strict compliance with service rules and evidence of conscious indifference regarding his failure to answer. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., because the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107 regarding substitute service, specifically the lack of reflection that service occurred at the court-ordered address.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureSubstitute ServiceAppellate ReviewMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceCraddock TestJurisdictionDue Process
References
5
Case No. 12-0102
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2014

Texas Coast Utilities Coalition v. Railroad Commission of Texas and Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp. D/B/A Centerpoint Energy Entex and Centerpoint Energy Texas Gas

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, ruling that the Railroad Commission of Texas possessed the statutory authority to adopt a gas utility rate schedule incorporating an automatic annual adjustment clause, known as a Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) clause. The Court determined that the Gas Utility Regulatory Act (GURA) expressly grants the Commission the power to establish "rates," which encompasses practices affecting compensation and charges. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the COSA clause adheres to GURA's mandates concerning procedural requirements and respects municipal jurisdiction, dismissing arguments that it allows for unauthorized rate changes or usurps municipal authority. The decision emphasizes that once a rate is approved through a proper proceeding, it does not require re-approval with each application.

Gas Utility RegulationRate ScheduleAutomatic AdjustmentsCOSA ClauseRailroad Commission of TexasGURAStatutory AuthorityRegulatory LagMunicipal JurisdictionPublic Utility Commission
References
28
Case No. 03-12-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2013

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. D/B/A American Pharmacies v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Thomas Suehs, Solely in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a American Pharmacies appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and its Executive Commissioner. American Pharmacies challenged HHSC's rulemaking obligations and specific rules related to pharmacy benefits under the Texas Medicaid managed care (MMC) program. They argued that HHSC failed to regulate reimbursement rates for pharmacies and did not comply with statutory requirements for analyzing the economic impact on small businesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that HHSC was not obligated to set reimbursement rates under the MMC model and had substantially complied with the relevant government code regarding small business impact. The court also determined that American Pharmacies lacked a justiciable interest as their economic losses stemmed from legislative changes rather than the challenged rules.

Medicaid Managed CarePharmacy BenefitsReimbursement RatesAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionUltra ViresStatutory ConstructionSmall Business ImpactTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. 03-21-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Texas Department of State Health Services, and Dr. Jennifer A. Shuford, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services v. Sky Marketing Corp., D/B/A Hometown Hero Create a Cig Temple, LLC Darrell Surif And David Walden

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Commissioner appealed a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the granting of a temporary injunction. The injunction prevented DSHS from enforcing amendments to controlled substance definitions and a website rule concerning Delta-8 THC. Appellees argued the Commissioner acted beyond her authority (ultra vires) and violated the Texas Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow proper procedures for schedule modifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that appellees had standing and presented valid ultra vires and APA claims. The appellate court also upheld the temporary injunction, citing the appellees' probable right to relief and the likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm.

Hemp legalizationDelta-8 THCControlled Substances Act (TCSA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Ultra ViresTemporary InjunctionSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)Cannabis regulation
References
64
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. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 19,031 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