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. 2-07-128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

City of the Colony, Texas AND City of Frisco, Texas AND North Texas Municipal Water District v. North Texas Municipal Water District and City of Frisco, Texas AND City of the Colony, Texas

The City of The Colony, Texas, entered into a tri-party contract in 1998 with the City of Frisco, Texas, and the North Texas Municipal Water District for the construction and operation of a regional wastewater system. The Colony later ceased payments and sued Frisco and the District for breach of contract, declaratory judgment that no contract was formed, and rescission. The trial court largely granted summary judgment to Frisco and the District, leaving only certain claims for trial. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding The Colony's claims and the District's appeal. However, for Frisco's appeal, the court reversed the jury's $0.00 damages award, rendering judgment that The Colony owed Frisco $642,863.98 for breach of contract.

Contract LawWastewater SystemMunicipal LawSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentRescissionUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelAppellate Review
References
112
Case No. 01-15-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2015

the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. National Wildlife Federation

This case involves an appeal filed by the National Wildlife Federation (Appellee) against the Upper Trinity Regional Water District and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Appellants). The appeal concerns the District Court's judgment of March 6, 2015, which reversed and remanded TCEQ's decision to grant Water Use Permit No. 5821 to the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. The core issue is TCEQ's alleged failure to properly implement Texas Water Code Section 11.085 (l)(2), which requires stringent water conservation and efficiency for interbasin water transfers. The Appellee argues that TCEQ improperly relied on a voluntary guide (Report 362) instead of fulfilling legislative directives for robust conservation standards, and that the District's water conservation plan lacks adequate implementation and enforcement mechanisms, thus failing to meet the 'highest practicable levels of water conservation and efficiency achievable' as mandated by law.

Water ConservationInterbasin TransferEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Water CodeWater Use PermitDrought Contingency PlanRegulatory ComplianceBest Management Practices
References
25
Case No. 06-04-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2004

City of Texarkana, Texas, D/B/A Texarkana Water Utilities v. Cities of New Boston, Hooks, DeKalb, Wake Village, Maud, Avery, and Annona, Texas

The City of Texarkana, operating as Texarkana Water Utilities, appealed a trial court's decision regarding governmental immunity in a lawsuit brought by seven other cities. These cities had sued Texarkana for various contract and tort claims related to water supply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that governmental immunity does not bar the contract claims, allowing them to proceed. However, the court reversed the trial court's decision on the tort claims, holding that governmental immunity does apply to and bars these claims, leading to their dismissal. The court delved into the interpretation of Section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code, concluding that the phrase 'plead and be impleaded' acts as an unambiguous legislative waiver of immunity from suit for contract claims for home-rule municipalities.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityContract LawTort LawMunicipal LawWater UtilitiesTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWaiver of Immunity
References
46
Case No. 03-02-00475-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Hays County, Texas v. Hays County Water Planning Partnership

This case involves an appeal by Hays County against a district court judgment favoring the Hays County Water Planning Partnership. The partnership had sought an injunction and attorney's fees, alleging that Hays County violated the Open Meetings Act, the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Local Government Code by improperly altering a transportation plan submitted to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding regarding the Open Meetings Act and the 'open courts' provision of the Texas Constitution, dissolving the injunction. However, it affirmed that Hays County violated the Texas Constitution (Art. V, § 18) and the Local Government Code due to an invalid action by a single commissioner and upheld the award of attorney's fees to the Partnership under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Texas Court of AppealsOpen Meetings ActTexas ConstitutionLocal Government CodeDeclaratory Judgments ActSovereign ImmunityLegislative ImmunityCounty Commissioners CourtTransportation PlanInjunction
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corporation appealed a district court judgment that dismissed its claims against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Carma Easton, Inc. Creedmoor sought to challenge a TCEQ order granting Carma an expedited release from Creedmoor's certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN), which would allow Carma to obtain water service from another utility. Creedmoor argued that TCEQ exceeded its statutory authority and that the water code provisions were unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, the Texas Open Courts guarantee, and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Creedmoor failed to demonstrate that it "provided or made service available" to the disputed area, a key requirement for federal protection under 7 U.S.C.A. § 1926(b). The court also found no valid Open Courts or Due Process violations, emphasizing that CCNs do not confer vested property rights.

Water Supply CorporationCertificate of Convenience and NecessityTCEQExpedited ReleaseSovereign ImmunitySupremacy ClauseOpen Courts DoctrineDue ProcessJudicial ReviewWater Rights
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Commission, challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing these agencies to levy civil penalties. Specifically, TAB argued that provisions requiring a supersedeas bond or cash deposit for judicial review violated the open courts and jury trial provisions of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied TAB's relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the jury trial challenge, concluding that no right to a jury trial exists for appeals from administrative environmental adjudications. However, the Court reversed the trial court on the open courts challenge, holding that mandating a bond or cash deposit as a prerequisite to judicial review was an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on court access.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStandingJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionJury Trial RightEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesTexas ConstitutionSeparation of Powers
References
91
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. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lower Laguna Madre Foundation, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

The Lower Laguna Madre Foundation and Walter Kittelberger appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission and Loma Alta Trust. The appeal addressed four issues: whether a section of the Texas Administrative Code created an exemption for shrimp research facilities, if the Commission violated the Texas Water Code regarding exemption conditions, whether the rule's adoption order contained a reasoned justification under the Administrative Procedure Act, and if the failure to provide for an appeal in the exemption rule prejudiced the Foundation's rights. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the exemption valid, the Commission's actions compliant with the Water Code, the justification sufficient, and no prejudice to the Foundation's rights.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawAquaculture RegulationShrimp Research FacilitiesSummary Judgment AppealStatutory ConstructionRule-Making AuthorityReasoned JustificationAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Texas Water Code
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,082 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