Below are selected Supreme Court decisions made in cases involving Travis County. Case summaries are prepared by court staff as a courtesy. They are not a substitute for the actual opinions.
NuStar Energy, L.P. v. Hancock, _ S.W.3d , 2026 WL (Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)
[24-0037]
This administrative-rule challenge involves the construction of a franchise-tax
statute that allocates gross sales receipts to Texas if goods were “delivered or shipped
to a buyer in this state.” The decisive question is whether the statute sources sales
receipts to the place goods were delivered to a buyer or whether the buyer’s intended
destination for the goods controls.
NuStar Energy requested a refund for franchise taxes paid on bunker fuel sold
for use in foreign-registered vessels and delivered to the buyers at Texas ports. The
company argued that the sales receipts should not be sourced to Texas because the
nonresident buyers cannot legally use or dispose of the fuel in Texas or Texas waters.
NuStar’s tax-refund suit attacked the facial validity of Comptroller rules that make
the physical point of transfer determinative as to sourcing. NuStar argued that the
tax statute employs an ultimate-destination test that looks beyond the delivery point
to the location the buyer ultimately situates goods for consumption, use, or storage.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the lower courts rejected NuStar’s
construction of the tax statute and upheld the Comptroller’s point-of-delivery rules.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the tax statute unambiguously
sources receipts to Texas when a buyer takes possession and control within the state.
NuStar’s rule challenge incorrectly construed the statute and failed to overcome the
presumption that the Comptroller’s rules are valid.
Advertisement
Article continues beneath this ad
Off. of Atty. Gen. v. PFLAG, Inc., _ S.W.3d , 2026 WL (Tex. Mar. 13, 2026)
[24-0892]
At issue is whether the trial court erred by ruling that PFLAG did not need to
comply with a civil investigative demand issued by the Consumer Protection Division
of the Office of the Attorney General.
The Office of the Attorney General is investigating whether medical providers
are violating the State’s ban on transgender treatment of minors, including whether
they are defrauding insurers under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. PFLAG is a
nonprofit that describes itself “as a resource for LGBTQ people, families, and allies.”
The executive director of PFLAG had filed an affidavit in another case describing
certain activities of PFLAG families in response to a new state law prohibiting
medical treatments for transitioning a child’s biological sex. The DTPA authorizes
the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands as part of an investigation
of possible violations of the Act. The Attorney General issued a CID to PFLAG and
then later issued a revised CID with a narrower scope and that permitted the
redaction of information identifying PFLAG members. PFLAG resisted the CIDs by
seeking injunctive and other pretrial relief. The case proceeded to trial. The district
court rendered a final judgment holding that PFLAG did not need to produce
documents under any of the eight categories set out in the original CID that it had
not already produced. The Attorney General brought a direct appeal to the Supreme
Court.
The Court reversed the judgment, holding that (1) the district court should
have analyzed the revised CID instead of the original CID; (2) the court failed to credit
the Attorney General’s reasonable interpretation of the affidavit and to appreciate its
connection to the office’s investigation; and (3) PFLAG should produce documents
responsive to several of the document categories set out in the revised CID. The Court
explained that on remand, PFLAG’s obligation to produce documents is subject to its
right to produce a privilege log and establish the existence of a recognized privilege
for individual documents.