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. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1995

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

This case addresses the duties and liabilities of a commercial surety to its bond obligee. The Supreme Court of Texas held that there is no common law duty of good faith and fair dealing between a commercial surety and its bond obligee, comparable to that between a liability insurer and its insured, thereby reversing the court of appeals' judgment on this point. The Court also determined that Article 21.21 of the Insurance Code does not apply to a commercial surety. However, the Court affirmed the court of appeals' holding that Great American Insurance Company, as the surety, is liable under the terms of the performance bond for the default of its principal, Underground Utilities Company, in a wastewater lift station construction project. The Court further concluded that Great American is liable for attorneys' fees resulting from its own breach of the performance bond, calculating the amount to be $132,501.07. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings concerning prejudgment interest.

Commercial SuretyBond ObligeeGood Faith and Fair Dealing DutyInsurance Code ApplicabilityPerformance BondBreach of ContractAttorneys' FeesTexas Supreme CourtConstruction ProjectWastewater Lift Station
References
31
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Warren County Utility District

This case addresses the standard for employer liability in supervisor sexual harassment cases under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the vicarious liability standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ellerth and Faragher. Plaintiff Demetra Lyree Parker alleged sexual harassment by her manager, David Grissom, at Warren County Utility District. Despite informal complaints, the Utility District claimed lack of formal notice and sought summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the Utility District, holding that an employer is vicariously liable, but may raise an affirmative defense if no tangible employment action occurred. The case was remanded to allow the Utility District to attempt to establish this affirmative defense.

Sexual HarassmentEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAffirmative DefenseHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoTennessee Human Rights ActTitle VIISupervisor MisconductEmployment Discrimination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raczka v. Nichter Utility Construction Co.

A plaintiff was severely injured when a hydraulic platform lift collapsed, causing him to fall during the installation of a traffic signal. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Nichter Utility Construction Company, Inc., citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Nichter, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, A.J.L. Electric Co., Inc., for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, establishing that the injury resulted from a safety device's failure to provide adequate protection against an elevation-related risk. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff needed to prove the lift's malfunction cause or that his alleged negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries, deeming these contentions speculative.

Hydraulic lift accidentLabor Law 240(1)Elevation hazardSafety equipment failureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewGeneral contractor liabilityThird-party claimProximate causationWorkplace safety
References
7
Case No. 03-01-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2001

Reliant Energy, Incorporated v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel And Steering Committees for the Cities Served by TXU Electric and Central Power and Light Company

This case involves a direct appeal where Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Appellant) challenged the Public Utility Commission of Texas's (the Commission) price-to-beat rules. Reliant argued that these rules failed to ensure an initial fuel factor above market costs and that the Commission erred in excluding Provider of Last Resort (POLR) customers from market share calculations. Additionally, Reliant contended that the Commission's rule 25.41 violated the reasoned justification requirement of the Texas Government Code. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, upheld the price-to-beat regulations, concluding that the Commission acted within its authorized powers, and its decisions regarding the fuel factor, POLR customers, and reasoned justification were valid and consistent with the legislative intent to balance fostering competition and providing customer rate reductions during the transition to a competitive electricity market.

Electricity MarketDeregulationPublic Utility CommissionPrice-to-Beat RulesFuel FactorRetail Electric ProvidersMarket CompetitionAdministrative LawReasoned JustificationStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 12-20-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

Sean Self v. West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District

Sean Self appealed a take-nothing judgment granted to West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District, dismissing Self’s suit for damages from sewage flooding his home. Self alleged negligent use of motor-driven equipment, premises defect, unconstitutional taking, non-negligent nuisance, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Self failed to establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for the motor-driven equipment claim, as the damages arose from a broken plastic coupler, not the motor-driven pump. The court also found no evidence to support the premises liability, takings, non-negligent nuisance, or breach of contract claims, thus the District retained immunity.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionMotor-Driven EquipmentPremises DefectInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractNon-negligent NuisanceSewage FloodMunicipal Utility District
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 5,852 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