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. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. 03-95-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1996

Central Power and Light Company v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Central Power and Light Company (CP&L) appealed a summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller regarding the interpretation of a provision within the Franchise Tax Act, specifically concerning the computation of a company's surplus. CP&L challenged the Comptroller's interpretation of "generally accepted accounting principles" to include Financial Accounting Standards, arguing it resulted in unequal taxation by requiring utilities to capitalize AFUDC-equity while not requiring private companies to do so. CP&L also claimed the interpretation resurrected the

Franchise Tax ActAllowance for Funds Used During ConstructionAFUDC-equityFinancial Accounting Standards BoardTexas Constitution Article VIII Section 1Equal and Uniform TaxationDelegation of Legislative PowerRegulated UtilitiesSummary Judgment AppealTax Refund Action
References
21
Case No. 15-25-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Delia Garza, in Her Official Capacity as Travis County Attorney; John Creuzot, in His Official Capacity as Dallas County Criminal District Attorney; And Brian Middleton, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of Fort Bend County (268th Judicial District)

This emergency motion seeks to stay the enforcement of new rules (1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ch. 56) adopted by the Attorney General, which impose onerous reporting requirements on district and county attorneys in large Texas counties. The trial court had temporarily enjoined these rules, but the Attorney General's appeal automatically superseded the injunction. Appellees argue the rules are invalid due to lack of statutory authority, violation of separation of powers, and improper procedure. They also contend that complying with the rules would cause irreparable harm by diverting significant resources and forcing the disclosure of confidential and privileged information, while the Attorney General would suffer no prejudice from a stay. They seek a temporary order from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to preserve the status quo pending appeal.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefStay of EnforcementAdministrative RulesAttorney General AuthoritySeparation of PowersProsecutorial DiscretionConfidential InformationUnfunded MandateFiscal Impact
References
34
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Larry F. York// Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas// Cross- Larry F. York

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

This case involves a dispute between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the union) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The union sought to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee Patrick J. Rando, who was discharged by Niagara Mohawk after adulterating a drug test sample and later testing positive for cocaine. Niagara Mohawk counterclaimed to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy related to nuclear safety. The employee, a Chemistry Technician at a nuclear power plant, had unescorted access to critical areas. The court reviewed the public policy implications de novo, citing NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 26) that emphasize strict adherence to nuclear safety rules and the trustworthiness of personnel. The court found that the grievant's conduct directly contravened this well-defined public policy. Consequently, the court denied the union's motion to confirm, granted Niagara Mohawk's cross-motion, and vacated the arbitration award, dismissing the complaint entirely. Both parties' requests for attorney's fees were denied.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyNuclear SafetyDrug TestingEmployee DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessTrustworthinessReliabilityReinstatement
References
28
Case No. 15-24-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley v. Texas Municipal Power Agency

This document is a reply brief filed by Richard Mark Dudley and Deanie Palmer Dudley (Appellants) against Texas Municipal Power Agency (Appellee). The brief addresses several points on appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas. Key arguments include that the trial court's declaratory relief improperly expanded and rewrote the Easement, particularly concerning TMPA's discretion and the interpretation of "wall" versus "fence." The appellants also argue that TMPA incorrectly relied on Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §37.011 for injunctive relief without proper pleading or proof, and failed to meet requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. A significant portion of the brief challenges the award of attorney's fees to TMPA, asserting that TMPA failed to provide sufficient evidence for reasonable hourly rates and hours worked, and that the trial court abused its discretion in the award's amount. The Dudleys request the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s judgment, vacate declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions, and deny TMPA’s attorney’s fees claims, or alternatively, reverse and remand the case.

Easement RightsDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureLodestar MethodHourly RatesTrial Court DiscretionPleadingsBrazos County
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,762 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