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. WR 78,113-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Garza, Humberto

This document contains Applicant Humberto Garza's objections to the Convicting Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and its recommendation to deny habeas corpus relief. Garza seeks the withdrawal of the February 12, 2015 Order, the recusal of Judge Noe Gonzalez, and the assignment of a different judge or revised findings. The objections are rooted in concerns over alleged ex parte communications with the jury by the judge and bailiff, the court's adoption of the State's findings, and insufficient funding for case development. Additionally, Garza objects to the exclusion of expert reports diagnosing Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and outlining its impact on his life.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusRecusal MotionJury MisconductEx Parte CommunicationJudicial ImpartialityFetal Alcohol Spectrum DisorderMitigation EvidenceCapital PunishmentDeath Penalty
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 740 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