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. 03-14-00340-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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
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. 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. 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. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. 03A01-9902-CH-00077
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1999

Natl. Gas Dist. v. Sevier Co. Utility

The Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed a challenge brought by National Gas Distributors against Sevier County Utility District and the State Attorney General. The plaintiff contested a statutory amendment that permitted utility districts, including the defendant, to sell propane, arguing it violated due process and equal protection under both state and federal constitutions. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that National Gas Distributors lacked standing to challenge classifications among utility districts and failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or a lack of rational basis for the statute concerning private propane dealers. The decision upheld the legislature's authority to enable utility districts to provide propane services.

Utility LawPropane SalesConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStanding DoctrineLegislative AuthorityUtility DistrictsUnfair CompetitionStatutory Amendment
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,629 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