Cases

OPINION Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice We withdraw the opinion and judgment dated February 24, 2017, and substitute the following opinion and judgment in their place. We deny Time Warner Cable Texas LLC’s motion for rehearing and en bane reconsideration. This case concerns the rates charged by a municipally owned utility (MOU), CPS Energy, to telecommunications providers and other entiti

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas OPINION No. 04-22-00033-CV Frederick BEEBE, Appellant v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, by and through its agent, CPS Energy,

ACCEPTED 03-14-00340-CV

ACCEPTED 03-14-00340-CV 5210597 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 23-0231 ══════════ Public Utility Commission of Texas, Petitioner, v. Luminant Energy Company LLC, Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thi

Case: 23-50530 Document: 61-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

Case: 20-50892 Document: 00516203340 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February

Madsen, C.J. ¶1 Petitioners seek adjudication of their summary judgment motion concerning their insurers’ duty to defend them in cases brought by local taxing authorities. They further request a stay of discovery in the coverage action that may prejudice them in the underlying litigation. ¶2 We hold that the trial court erred by delaying adjudication of Zurich’s1 duty to defend Exp

259 P.3d 234 (2011) FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. No. 84207-8. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Argued May 17, 2011. Decided August 25, 2011. *237 Scott M. Edwards, Lane Powell, PC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner. Brett S. Durbin, Heidi A. Irv

Stephens, J. ¶24 (dissenting) — Despite acknowledging the proper interpretation of “ensuing loss” set forth in our opinion in the companion case of Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., 174 Wn.2d 501, 276 P.3d 300 (2012), the majority concludes there is no coverage for Max and Krista Sprague’s collapsed deck. I disagree. This case is in all material respects the same as Vision One, and the dist

Owens, J. ¶1 Before us is a constitutional challenge to two provisions of voter-enacted former RCW 43.135.034 (2011) (Initiative 1053 (1-1053)). The first provision requires that any bill containing a tax increase be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the legislature (Supermajority Requirement), and the second provision requires that any tax bill increasing spending beyond the state spending limit be approved by the voters (

Johnson, J. ¶1 This case involves whether the plaintiffs’ claims under the Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, and Planning Enabling Act of the State of Washington (PEA), chapter 36.70 RCW, were properly dismissed as time barred.1 The trial court granted the defendant-county’s summary judgment motion on each of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed on the GMA and PEA c

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE HUERTA, an No. 21-16201 individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated D.C. No. and as a representative 5:18-cv-06761-BLF plaintiff, Plaintiff-Appellant, ORDER v. CERTIFYING QUESTIONS TO CSI ELECTRICAL

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-23-00234-CV ___________________________ AMY HALE, Appellant V. BRIAN HALE, Appellee On Appeal from the 233rd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 233-674169-19 Before Birdwell, Womack, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

Stephens, J. ¶1 — Plaintiff Ericka Rickman brought this suit against her former employer, Premera Blue Cross, for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Rickman alleges she was terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about potential violations of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936, and its Washington counterpart, the Uniform Healt

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARL CURTIS, an individual; No. 16-56515 ARTHUR WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02480-ODW-E v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC., a OPINION California corporation; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the Unite

GORDON McCLOUD, J. *727¶1 Washington's superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction-most claims, on most subjects, valued at most any amount, can be decided there. Washington's district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction-only a subset of claims, on a subset of subjects, with $100,000 or less in controversy for civil cases, can be d

JOHNSON, J. ¶ 1 We are asked to decide whether the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, applies when parties are challenging, as excessive, permit application fees assessed when a building or a land use permit application is submitted for processing. The trial court dismissed the suit on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that LUPA governed and the failure t

J.M. Johnson, J. ¶45 (dissenting) — The Federal Way Police Department discharged Officer Robert Piel for telling fellow officers in a meeting at the department offices that he had considered “murdering or shooting Department members.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 279. As an additional ground for termination, the department determined that Officer Piel had been “dishonest” when he was questioned about these murder comments. CP at 280-81

¶1 — In this class action on behalf of Seattle City Light ratepayers, we are asked to decide whether a municipal utility may mitigate the effects of its greenhouse gas emissions by paying public and private entities to reduce those entities’ emissions. We hold that combating global warming is a general government purpose, albeit a meritorious one, and not a proprietary utility purpose. Therefore, such mitigation expenses must be borne by general taxpayers