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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Live Oak Brewing Co.

The Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission appealed a trial court's judgment declaring Section 102.75(a)(7) of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code unconstitutional. This statute prohibits manufacturers from accepting payment for the assignment of territorial distribution rights. Appellees, several craft breweries, argued the statute violated their economic liberty interest under the Texas Constitution's due course of law clause by restricting their ability to sell territorial rights and hindering business expansion. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the appellees failed to demonstrate the statute deprived them of occupational freedom or was unconstitutionally oppressive. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the statute, stating it operates within the legitimate framework of the state's three-tier alcoholic beverage regulatory system and is part of a broader legislative compromise.

Economic regulationDue course of lawTexas ConstitutionThree-tier systemAlcoholic beverage industryCraft beerDistribution rightsFacial challengeAs-applied challengeStatutory interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CADENA COMERCIAL USA CORP. D/B/A OXXO, Appellant v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Appellee

Cadena Comercial USA Corp. d/b/a OXXO challenged an administrative order from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) denying its application for a wine and beer retailer's off-premise permit. The TABC's denial was based on "tied house" prohibitions in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, which aim for "strict separation" between manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to prevent overlapping ownership interests. Cadena, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of FEMSA, was found to have a prohibited cross-tier relationship because FEMSA also holds a 20% stock interest in Heineken brewers (manufacturers). The court affirmed the administrative order, holding that the term "interest" in the statute broadly encompasses any commercial or economic interest providing a stake in the financial performance of an entity in the alcoholic beverage industry, and a "control" standard is not required. The court also rejected Cadena's arguments regarding constitutional vagueness, equal protection, and the inapplicability of veil-piercing principles, concluding that FEMSA's significant financial interest at multiple tiers violated the strict separation mandate.

Alcoholic Beverage CodeTied House ProhibitionRetail Permit DenialCross-tier OwnershipCorporate InterdependenceStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawTexas Alcoholic Beverage CommissionManufacturer-Retailer Relationship
References
31
Case No. 2-05-355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Twenty Wings Ltd., D/B/A Hooters v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Partnership for Community Values The Hon. Bill Zedler The Hon. Ron Wright The Hon. Steve McCollum Mrs. Leslie Recine Mrs. Melba McDow The Hon. Patricia A. Hardy Mr. Barry D. Johnson Mrs. Reland Gonzalez

This case addresses whether a trial court possessed the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling an administrative law judge to dismiss an administrative proceeding based on res judicata. Twenty Wings, Ltd. d/b/a Hooters, sought a mixed beverage permit, which was contested by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and other appellees. After the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied a motion to dismiss, the appellees filed a proceeding in district court, which subsequently granted a writ of mandamus. The appellate court determined that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the TABC and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to adjudicate the substantive legal and factual issues concerning mixed beverage permits. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject matter jurisdiction to issue the mandamus order.

MandamusExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative LawRes JudicataAlcoholic Beverage PermitTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionTABCSOAH
References
4
Case No. GA-0561
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2007

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Under the terms of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, a pool hall may operate on a BYOB ("bring your own bottle") basis without a permit or license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Moreover, the City of Corsicana may not by municipal ordinance regulate the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages within a pool hall that operates on a BYOB basis.

BYOB regulationAlcoholic Beverage CodeMunicipal ordinancesState preemption doctrinePool hall operationsAlcoholic beverage licensingPermit requirementsDry areasWet areasPrivate club status
References
3
Case No. NO. 2-07-150-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2008

I Gotcha, Inc., D/B/A Illusions v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission

I Gotcha, Inc., operating as Illusions, appealed a trial court's judgment that upheld a $13,500 civil penalty imposed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC). The penalty resulted from a TABC investigation where a dancer at Illusions allegedly solicited TABC agents for sexual purposes. Illusions contended that the dancer was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that a single incident was insufficient to justify a 'place or manner' violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge's conclusions that the dancer was an employee and that the solicitation occurred. The court also upheld the finding of a 'place or manner' violation, citing the current incident and Illusions's prior Code violations, and found no abuse of discretion in the penalty assessment.

Alcoholic Beverage Code ViolationsCivil PenaltyAdministrative ReviewSubstantial Evidence RuleEmployee vs. Independent ContractorSolicitation for Immoral PurposesPublic DecencyPermit SuspensionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 04-24-00516-CV & 04-24-00521-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

B&T Dependable Services, LLC and Bernell Gardener v. Edward Santos

Edward Santos, performing work for B&T Dependable Services, LLC, was injured in a truck accident. B&T had workers' compensation coverage, and Texas Mutual Insurance Company provided Santos benefits. Santos subsequently sued B&T and Bernell Gardener for negligence, disputing his employment status. An administrative law judge (ALJ) previously ruled Santos was an employee, and Santos did not appeal this decision. Appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Labor Code and the doctrine of election of remedies barred Santos's lawsuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, citing recent Supreme Court precedent that the Division of Workers' Compensation does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over negligence claims not predicated on entitlement to benefits. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellants failed to conclusively prove every element of their affirmative defense of election of remedies.

Workers' Compensation LawNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy DoctrineElection of RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Court ReviewSummary Judgment DenialTexas Labor CodeEmployment Status DisputeAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westerhaus v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Justice Lagarde dissents in a case concerning the readjudication of "future dependency" of a minor under the Workers' Compensation Act. In 1982, Stacie was found dependent, with an insurance company, Liberty, paying benefits until 1993 when it sought readjudication. The trial court's judgment allowed for readjudication based on a "material change of the then circumstances of dependency." Lagarde argues that Liberty's summary judgment evidence, which included Stacie's admissions about her financial independence and age, conclusively proved this material change. Therefore, Justice Lagarde would have affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Liberty.

Future DependencyMinor DependencyWorkers' CompensationReadjudicationMaterial Change of CircumstancesSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAdult Child DependencyFinancial IndependenceInsurance Benefits
References
0
Case No. ADJ1940516 (GOL 0101910)
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

TONY COSTANTINO (Deceased), ELLIE COSTANTINO (Widow), CIERA MILLENDER (Dependent) vs. SANTA BARBARA SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns whether a stepdaughter is entitled to the conclusive presumption of total dependency for workers' compensation death benefits under Labor Code section 3501. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award, holding that the conclusive presumption does not apply to stepchildren absent legal adoption. The Board found insufficient evidence regarding the stepdaughter's actual dependency and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record on this issue. The WCAB clarified that while stepchildren can be dependents, the specific statutory presumption of total dependency is limited to "children" under the law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitsDependencyLabor Code Section 3501Conclusive PresumptionStepchildPartial DependentReconsiderationWCJ
References
3
Case No. ADJ9440770 ADJ8897603
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LEE WOOLEVER (Deceased); PENNY WOOLEVER; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case concerns a claim for workers' compensation death benefits by Penny Woolever, the ex-wife of deceased employee Lee Woolever. Ms. Woolever argued she was a total dependent despite their divorce due to ongoing financial support and a close relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that she was not a dependent, as their divorce was final and they never resumed cohabitation. The Board distinguished this case from precedent allowing dependency claims based on reconciliation. Consequently, the death benefit was awarded to the Department of Industrial Relations, Death Without Dependents Unit.

Esophageal cancerDeath benefitsDependency claimLabor Code section 3502Reconciliation of marriageSpousal supportTotal dependentDivorce decreeWCJ ReportLloyd Corporation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 523 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