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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Children's Services, Inc.

Joe Walker sustained serious injuries after a single-vehicle collision while driving under the influence, having consumed alcohol furnished by co-workers employed by Children's Services, Inc. Walker and his wife sued Children's Services, Inc. and employee Daryl Dulaney for negligence, arguing a duty existed to prevent serving alcohol to an intoxicated person. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Texas law does not extend social host liability to a person who injures themselves after being furnished intoxicants in a social setting. The court distinguished this from commercial licensee liability and declined to create a new form of liability, deeming it a legislative matter.

Drunk drivingSocial host liabilityNegligenceTort lawSummary judgmentDuty of careAlcoholic beverage codeEmployer liabilityProximate causeTexas law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Fullenwider v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,310 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