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. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-01-00156-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2002

Lakeshore Utility Company, Inc., Sentry Title Company, Inc., Alan D. Whatley, and Thelma J. Whatley v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

This case concerns Lakeshore Utility Company, along with its parent Sentry Title Company and officers Alan and Thelma Whatley, appealing a district court judgment. The judgment imposed civil penalties for knowing violations of the Texas Water Code and mandated refunds for unauthorized "tap fees" not approved in Lakeshore's tariff. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's finding that Lakeshore knowingly violated the water code by charging unapproved rates. However, it reversed the portion of the judgment requiring refunds beyond those previously ordered by the Commission in 1983 and 1989. The court concluded that the Commission lacked the statutory authority to seek such retroactive refunds directly in a court action on behalf of customers, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationCivil PenaltiesTap FeesRate ViolationsWater CodeStatutory AuthorityRefundsAdministrative OrdersJudicial ReviewAppellate Court
References
26
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 03-14-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2015

CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// Cross-Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T

This brief argues that the Public Utility Commission (Commission) erroneously issued an advisory opinion concerning amendments to federal regulations (47 C.F.R. 1.1409(e)) that took effect after the relevant billing period of 2005-2010. CPS Energy contends that these findings were premature, advisory, and beyond the Commission's jurisdictional scope. Additionally, CPS Energy asserts that the Commission's interpretation of Utilities Code § 54.204(c) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power to a federal agency. The brief urges the Third Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission's contested findings (Findings of Fact 84-87 and Conclusions of Law 26 and 27) and remand the case for an order consistent with the court's opinion.

JurisdictionAdvisory OpinionPole Attachment RatesFederal Communications CommissionPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationUnconstitutional DelegationRipenessAppellate Procedure
References
84
Case No. 03-02-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This direct appeal concerns a challenge by Reliant Energy, Incorporated and American Electric Power Company against the Public Utility Commission of Texas regarding a rule on stranded-cost recovery for deregulated electric utilities. Stranded costs are prudently incurred expenditures that became unrecoverable in a deregulated market. The utilities argued that the Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating portions of substantive rule 25.263, specifically regarding the "netting" of stranded costs with other true-up items like fuel balances, the application of a control premium in partial stock valuation, and the consideration of "other admitted evidence." The court held that the Commission exceeded its authority in these areas, reversing and remanding those portions of the rule, but affirmed other challenged provisions, including the timing of interest accrual and the duty of successor affiliates to reduce potential stranded costs.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsPublic Utility CommissionUtility RegulationAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityTrue-up ProceedingsSecuritizationFuel BalanceMarket Valuation
References
65
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. 03-21-00098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2023

Luminant Energy Company LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This direct appeal challenges two orders issued by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) in February 2021, which aimed to govern scarcity pricing in the Texas wholesale electricity market during Winter Storm Uri. Appellant Luminant Energy Company LLC and aligned intervenors contended that these orders exceeded the PUC's statutory authority by effectively eliminating competition. The Third District Court of Appeals in Austin agreed, ruling that the PUC violated the Texas Utilities Code by setting a single maximum price for power, thereby having the "maximum impact on competition conceivable." The court emphasized the legislative preference for competitive rather than regulatory methods with the least impact on competition. Consequently, the court reversed the Commission's orders and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Electricity MarketScarcity PricingWinter Storm UriAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory AuthorityTexas Utilities CodePublic Utility CommissionERCOTCompetition Rules
References
51
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. 3-92-182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 1993

Great American Insurance Company v. North Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1

North Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 (MUD) sued Great American Insurance Company (Great American), a construction surety, and other parties over a defective waste-water system. Following a jury trial, judgment was rendered in favor of MUD against all defendants, with Great American being the sole appellant. Great American challenged the trial court's judgment on multiple grounds, including the underlying liability of Underground Utilities, jury charge issues, the applicability of the Insurance Code to commercial sureties, sufficiency of evidence for violations, attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas, found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming Great American's liability for unfair or deceptive acts and upholding the awards.

Surety LawConstruction ContractBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance Code ViolationsAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewContractual Liability
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 11,936 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