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. 03-08-00793-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Public Utility Commission of Texas And Electric Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, and Victoria State of Texas And Texas Industrial Energy Consumers

This case involves an administrative appeal challenging a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order that approved Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT)'s formation transactions, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. The district court reversed the PUC order, finding it exceeded statutory authority by granting a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to ETT and erred in denying municipalities' expenses. The appeals court affirmed the district court's remand for reconsideration of municipalities' expenses, but reversed the remainder of the district court's judgment, ultimately affirming the PUC's final order concerning the CCN grant and formation transactions.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionElectric Transmission Texas, LLCCertificate of Convenience and NecessityPublic Utility Regulatory ActStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSubstantial Evidence ReviewRatemaking Proceeding Expenses
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00983 [213 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Nick Castano, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in his personal injury action against Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and Henkels & McCoy, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations. Castano sustained injuries while working on a pipeline project when a heavy pipe allegedly struck his leg. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied Castano's cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend his bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granting Castano leave to amend his bill of particulars. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Castano's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskPipeline ProjectIndustrial CodePleading Amendment
References
17
Case No. NO. 01-87-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1987

Valero Transmission Company v. Mitchell Energy Corporation

This case involves an appeal by Valero Transmission Company against a temporary injunction ordering it to purchase specific quantities of natural gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation, pursuant to an existing gas purchase agreement. The trial court found Valero in breach, leading to gas drainage from Mitchell's leases and imminent lease loss. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, rejecting Valero's arguments regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, illegality based on market demand, the applicability of a force majeure clause, and Mitchell's alleged 'unclean hands.' The court concluded that the injunction served to preserve the status quo and did not require Valero to violate Texas law or Railroad Commission regulations.

Gas purchase contractTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMarket demandForce majeureDrainageLease preservationTexas Railroad CommissionSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Case No. 05-11-01019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. v. Kary Lynn Rollins

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial following a no-answer default judgment. Kary Lynn Rollins sued Big D for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), conversion, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Rollins served Big D by substituted service on the secretary of state after unsuccessful attempts to serve its registered agent. The Court of Appeals found that the secretary of state's certificate conclusively established service and that Big D failed to prove its failure to answer was not due to conscious indifference. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling Big D's arguments regarding the new trial, DTPA claim sufficiency, and damages.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessSubstituted ServiceRegistered AgentDeceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)DamagesMarket ValueAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Public Utility Commission v. Cities of Harlingen

This case involves an appeal by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT) against a district court's judgment. The district court had reversed a PUC order approving ETT's application for formation, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. This appellate court holds that the PUC acted within its statutory authority in granting a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to ETT and approving the transfer of rights, also finding substantial evidence for ETT's formation transactions. However, the court affirmed the district court's remand of the case to the Commission for reconsideration of expense reimbursement for intervening municipalities, concluding the Commission erred in denying their expenses based on an incorrect statutory interpretation. The final judgment is a mixed decision.

Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA)Electric UtilityCertificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN)Transmission-Only UtilityRate-making ProceedingExpense ReimbursementStatutory ConstructionAdministrative AppealDue ProcessSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. v. James A. Bova

This is a restricted appeal where AAMCO Transmissions, Inc. challenged a no-answer default judgment entered by the trial court in favor of James Bova. AAMCO contended that the default judgment was erroneously based on an unserved amended petition that allegedly sought greater relief after the trial court orally rendered a default judgment. The appellate court examined whether the unserved amended petition sought a more onerous judgment by increasing the amount of damages or by omitting co-defendants. The court concluded that the amended petition did not seek a more onerous judgment as the maximum recovery remained $2,000,000, and removing co-defendants did not increase AAMCO's potential liability for actual or punitive damages. Additionally, the court found that the judgment was not entered prematurely, as AAMCO had ample opportunity to answer the original petition but failed to do so. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Restricted AppealDefault JudgmentAmended PetitionUnserved PleadingOnerous JudgmentIncreased LiabilityPunitive DamagesActual DamagesProportionate ResponsibilityVicarious Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyette v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co.

Plaintiff Clayton Larry Boyette, joined by his wife Delores, sued Algonquin Gas Transmission Co. for negligence and New York Labor Law violations after a fall on Algonquin's property. Algonquin impleaded its contractor, Dick Enterprises, Inc., asserting contractual duties of defense, indemnity, and insurance. Algonquin moved for summary judgment, seeking no liability to Boyette and contractual liability from Dick. The court granted summary judgment for Algonquin and Dick on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding no violation of the industrial code's specific tripping hazard rules. However, the motion was denied regarding common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, due to unresolved factual disputes about Algonquin's supervisory control. The court also denied summary judgment on Dick's indemnification duty, pending a negligence determination, but granted it on Dick's obligation to procure insurance, concluding that this duty had been fulfilled.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceNew York Labor Law § 200New York Labor Law § 241(6)IndemnificationInsurance ObligationConstruction Site AccidentContract DisputeThird-Party LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ronald Holland's A-Plus Transmission & Automotive, Inc.

The Hollands sued E-Z Mart, Yates, and Mapco for negligence, trespass, and nuisance after gasoline leaked from a storage system and migrated to their property, causing an explosion. A jury awarded the Hollands over $550,000 in damages. On appeal, E-Z Mart challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding causation and damages, and the trial court's exclusion of evidence related to Mapco. The appellate court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence for causation and damages, but found that the trial court erred by excluding evidence pertaining to Mapco's potential responsibility for the contamination. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Environmental ContaminationGasoline LeakProperty DamageNegligence ClaimNuisance ClaimCausation EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceExclusion of EvidenceReversal and RemandAppellate Court Decision
References
29
Case No. 2016-04-0202
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2017

Wright, Jason v. R & D Enterprises of TN d/b/a Mr. Transmission

Jason Wright, an employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury on May 23, 2016. He claimed to have fallen while working at Mr. Transmission, but could not recall the reason for the fall. The Court found that Mr. Wright was unlikely to prove at trial that his injury was not idiopathic, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between his fall and his employment. Medical evaluations by Dr. Thuy Ngo suggested a possible closed head injury but did not meet the 'reasonable degree of medical certainty' required for causation. Therefore, the Court denied Mr. Wright's request for benefits.

Workers' compensationIdiopathic injuryCausationExpedited hearingHead injurySyncopePost-concussive syndromeMedical evidenceBurden of proofTennessee law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 69 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