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. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. 03-05-00018-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2009

Burnet Central Appraisal District v. Louis G. Millmeyer and Sharon Millmeyer

This ad valorem tax case involves the Burnet Central Appraisal District appealing a district court judgment that reduced the appraised value of property belonging to Louis G. and Sharon Millmeyer and awarded them attorneys’ fees. The Appraisal District challenged the attorneys' fee award, the district court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the property's lowered valuation. The appellate court modified the judgment to reduce the attorneys’ fees, agreeing that the award exceeded statutory limits. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on the property valuation and found no reversible harm from the lack of findings of fact.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationAttorneys' FeesStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeSufficiency of EvidenceFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Harris County Appraisal District

This case addresses the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) award of unemployment benefits to former members of the Harris County Appraisal Review Board (Board members). The Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) challenged these awards, arguing that Board members were neither its employees nor eligible for benefits due to their 'judiciary' role. The trial court sided with HCAD, denying TWC's summary judgment motion and granting HCAD's. The appellate court found that Board members do not fall under the judiciary exception and that substantial evidence supported TWC's determination of an employer-employee relationship with HCAD. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendering a decision in TWC's favor and affirming the unemployment benefits awards.

unemployment benefitsappraisal review boardemployer-employee relationshipsubstantial evidencesummary judgmentadministrative lawjudicial reviewstatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeTexas Tax Code
References
25
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 02-24-00305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Mitch Vexler, Catherine Vexler, Mavex Shops of Flower Mound, LP, Jim Solinski, and Gloria Solinski v. Don Spencer, in His Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Denton Central Appraisal District, and Denton Central Appraisal District

The appellants, Denton County property owners, sued the Denton Central Appraisal District (DCAD) and its Chief Appraiser, Don Spencer, challenging their property taxes and DCAD's implementation of the Texas Tax Code. They alleged DCAD fraudulently increased property values and sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and tax refunds. The trial court granted DCAD's and Spencer's pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the Texas Tax Code's administrative remedies are exclusive for property tax disputes and the appellants lacked standing for their constitutional challenge. The court denied a remand for repleading as the appellants had ample opportunity to amend their petition.

Property TaxAppraisal DistrictTax CodeJurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTax RefundStanding
References
43
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. 2-06-176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2007

Jackie Collins v. Tarrant Appraisal District

Jackie Collins, a former employee of Tarrant Appraisal District, appeals a summary judgment and an award of attorney's fees against her in a religious discrimination case. Collins, an adherent of the Pentecostal faith, was terminated for insubordination after refusing to provide a hair sample for drug testing, claiming it violated her religious beliefs against cutting her hair. The District argued that Collins never explicitly informed them that her refusal was due to a religious conflict. The trial court granted the motion and eventually awarded the District attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Collins failed to produce evidence for a prima facie element of her claim, rendering her claim groundless, and thus upholding the attorney's fees award.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodePentecostal BeliefsDrug TestingHair SampleInsubordinationReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. 11-06-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2006

Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board v. Plains Marketing, L.P., a Texas Limited Partnership, and Plains Marketing GP Inc., General Partner

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing, L.P. appealing the tax assessment on its crude oil inventory accounts. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Midland County Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting that Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their challenge. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Plains had sufficiently exhausted its administrative remedies because the exemption claim was thoroughly discussed and determined by the Appraisal Review Board, despite initial protest notice deficiencies. The core issue revolved around whether oil stored in tank farms for future delivery constituted taxable inventory or was exempt under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Property TaxAd ValoremAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate CommerceOil InventoryAppraisal Review BoardTexas LawAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burnet Central Appraisal District v. Millmeyer

This is an ad valorem tax case where the Burnet Central Appraisal District appealed a district court judgment that lowered the appraised value of property belonging to Louis G. and Sharon Millmeyer and awarded them attorneys' fees. The Appraisal District challenged the attorneys' fees award, the failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the sufficiency of evidence for the lowered appraisal. The appellate court modified the judgment to reduce the attorneys' fees from $2,500 (plus contingent appeal fees) to $225.51, agreeing with the Appraisal District that the award exceeded statutory limits based on tax savings. The court affirmed the district court's property valuation and found no reversible harm in the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately affirming the district court's judgment as modified regarding attorneys' fees.

Ad valorem taxproperty valuationattorneys' feesstatutory constructionTexas Tax Codeappellate reviewsufficiency of evidencefindings of factconclusions of lawconstitutional law
References
25
Case No. 04-08-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2009

L v. Gard v. Bandera County Appraisal District Bandera County Chief Appraiser, R. Elaine Chaney Bandera County Appraisal Review Board, Boyd Peters, Chairman

L.V. Gard appeals a final judgment stemming from a tax appraisal challenge. Gard argues that the statutory cap on attorney's fees outlined in section 42.29 of the Texas Tax Code infringes upon taxpayers' due process rights and the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution. He also contends that the legislative history indicates no intent to deter average taxpayers from seeking legal recourse. The court overrules Gard's contentions, affirming the trial court's judgment and finding no constitutional violations. Additionally, the court denies the appellees' request for sanctions, concluding that the appeal was not objectively frivolous.

Tax Appraisal ChallengeAttorney's Fees CapDue Process RightsOpen Courts ProvisionTexas Tax Code Section 42.29Statutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryFrivolous Appeal DenialConstitutional LawAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 10,837 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