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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. 12-0657
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2015

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

This dissenting opinion addresses a challenge by eyebrow threaders (petitioners) to Texas' cosmetology licensing scheme, which requires 750 hours of training for an esthetician license. The petitioners argue that these requirements are excessive and violate substantive due process, lacking a rational connection to public health and safety. Chief Justice Hecht's dissent argues against the majority's decision to strike down the regulation, contending that while the regulation might be 'injudicious' as policy, it is not unconstitutional. The dissent asserts that the regulation is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting public health and safety, citing potential health risks from hair removal and similar regulations in other states. It criticizes the majority for creating an 'oppressive' standard for substantive due process, departing from the established rational basis test and risking judicial overreach into legislative policy-making.

Economic LibertyDue ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessRational Basis TestCosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingJudicial ActivismPolice PowerTexas ConstitutionOccupational Licensing
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCollum v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation

Carolyn McCollum sued the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) after being terminated from the Texas Cosmetology Commission (Commission), alleging race, age, disability discrimination, and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. She initially filed complaints with the EEOC and TWC. The trial court granted the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting McCollum's federal claims were barred by sovereign immunity and state claims were untimely due to delayed filing and service. On appeal, McCollum abandoned her federal claims, focusing on her state law claims under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the 60-day period for filing and serving suit under Texas Labor Code § 21.254 is not a jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing it from other mandatory jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McCollum's state claims to proceed.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTimely filingTimely serviceJurisdictional requirementsAppellate review
References
19
Case No. 03-99-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Coalition of Texans With Disabilities v. Tommy v. Smith, Former Commissioner of Licensing and Regulation for Department of Licensing and Regulation, in His Official Capacity Rachelle A. Martin, Executive Director of TDLR And Members of the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation

The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities challenged the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation's (TDLR) interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Architectural Barriers Act. The dispute centered on whether the Act's exemption for religious facilities applied to entire buildings or only to specific areas used for religious rituals. The district court sided with the TDLR, broadly exempting entire religious buildings. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the Department's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the Act's purpose of eliminating barriers for disabled persons. The appellate court clarified that the exemption only applies to places within a religious building used primarily for rituals, not the entire structure, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

AccessibilityDisability RightsReligious ExemptionsArchitectural Barriers ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Petitioners, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA) and Richard McPhillips, challenged an emergency regulation by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) that mandated unvaccinated personnel in psychiatric facilities wear face masks during influenza season, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division determined the case was not moot, as the subsequently adopted permanent regulation presented the same alleged infirmities. On the merits, the court upheld the regulation, granting OMH significant judicial deference due to its expertise. OMH's decision was based on Department of Health expertise, its own assessment of patient vulnerability, and the efficacy of masks. The court found that OMH adequately addressed concerns regarding communication and role modeling, and reasonably justified exemptions for visitors and attorneys. The judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

RegulationsPublic HealthMandatory MasksInfluenzaPsychiatric FacilitiesWorkers' RightsAdministrative LawJudicial DeferenceMootnessCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

Wolf v. 2539 Realty Associates

This case concerns a dispute between a landlord and tenant over who should bear the cost of asbestos abatement in a leased parking garage. The building's structural steel was coated with asbestos, which, due to governmental regulations (OSHA, NYC Health Department), was deemed a hazardous condition requiring removal or encapsulation. The landlord invoked lease provisions (repair clause and governmental compliance clause) to shift responsibility to the tenant. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the landlord is responsible for the abatement costs. The court reasoned that asbestos abatement is not a "repair" in the normal sense, as the material was functional for its original purpose, and the governmental compliance clause did not apply as the hazard was an inherent building characteristic rather than arising from the tenant's specific use or actions.

Asbestos AbatementTenant ResponsibilityLandlord ResponsibilityLease InterpretationStructural AlterationsGovernmental Compliance ClauseRepair ClauseHazardous MaterialsBuilding CodeNew York City Administrative Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

2169 Central Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Petitioners 2169 Central Ltd., operator of Shenanigan's Bar, and its president Lewis D. Cross, challenged a determination by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) which imposed a $3,000 civil penalty for employing unlicensed security guards. The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the SLA exceeded its statutory authority and that its determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the SLA possessed the statutory authority to regulate and penalize licensees for violating its regulations, specifically 9 NYCRR 48.3 regarding conformance with governmental regulations. Furthermore, the court determined that the SLA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including police investigator testimony, sworn employee statements, and Department of State certifications, which confirmed the employment of unlicensed security guards. Consequently, the court confirmed the SLA's determination and dismissed the petition.

Liquor LicenseUnlicensed Security GuardsCivil PenaltyStatutory AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawAlbany CountyNew YorkAdult Entertainment ClubLiquor Control Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,289 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