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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Justice Boyd concurs with the judgment that a Texas statute requiring eyebrow threaders to obtain an esthetician's license is unconstitutional. However, he disagrees with the Court's adoption of a new 'unreasonably burdensome that it becomes oppressive' test for the Texas Constitution's 'due course of law' provision. Instead, he believes a law violates due course of law only if it is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore oppressive, because it has no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.' He finds the esthetician's license requirement for eyebrow threaders to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive as it lacks a rational relationship to public health and safety, despite agreeing that sanitation training is rational. Boyd emphasizes that courts should not 'legislate from the bench' but must exercise their authority to interpret the Constitution when a law is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He concludes that imposing the existing esthetician licensing scheme on eyebrow threaders is not rationally related to the legitimate government interest in promoting public health and safety.

Constitutional LawDue Course of LawEconomic RegulationOccupational LicensingEsthetician LicenseEyebrow ThreadingRational Basis ReviewArbitrary and UnreasonableTexas ConstitutionSubstantive Due Process
References
7
Case No. 05-06-01086-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2008

In Re Cg

This case concerns the appeal of an order suspending a father's licenses due to overdue child support, pursuant to Chapter 232 of the Texas Family Code. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the suspension order. The court concluded that while the trial court had jurisdiction, it abused its discretion because there was no evidence to support the implied findings necessary for license suspension under subsections 232.003(a)(2) and (3) of the Family Code, specifically regarding an opportunity for a repayment schedule and failure to comply with it. The court also clarified that section 232.004 does not provide an independent basis for license suspension and that section 232.009 regarding default does not apply when an attorney appears at the hearing. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and rendered judgment that the mother take nothing on her request for license suspension.

Child Support EnforcementLicense SuspensionTexas Family Code Chapter 232Statutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary SufficiencyDue ProcessOverdue Child SupportRepayment Schedule
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie

This case addresses a legal challenge to "Operation Refusal," an initiative by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) aimed at increasing disciplinary actions against taxi drivers for service refusals. Plaintiffs, including individual taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, contended that two policies of Operation Refusal—summary license suspension and post-hearing suspension/revocation—violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding the summary suspension policy, ruling it unconstitutional for depriving drivers of their licenses without adequate prior or post-suspension hearings. However, the Court largely denied the challenge to the post-hearing suspension/revocation policy, finding the rule not unconstitutionally vague, but allowed discovery on potential bias among TLC Administrative Law Judges. A preliminary injunction was issued, ordering the return of summarily suspended licenses to drivers awaiting a merits determination.

Due ProcessTaxi RegulationLicense SuspensionLicense RevocationCivil Rights Litigation42 U.S.C. § 1983Administrative Law JudgeSummary Judgment MotionPreliminary InjunctionGovernment Overreach
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Choi v. State

The petitioner, a physician, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Commissioner of Education to suspend his medical license. The charges of professional misconduct stemmed from prior findings by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Health (DOH) regarding unacceptable patient care, inappropriate treatment, excessive testing, and operating a clinical laboratory without a permit. The Regents Review Committee, utilizing an expedited procedure, found the petitioner guilty of two specifications based on the DSS determination and recommended a two-year license suspension, with a partial stay and probation. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition, rejecting the petitioner's arguments against the application of collateral estoppel, the propriety of the expedited procedure, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the preceding administrative hearings. The court also upheld the penalty imposed, deeming it not excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Professional MisconductPhysician License SuspensionCPLR Article 78Collateral EstoppelExpedited ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselDepartment of Social ServicesDepartment of HealthAdministrative LawProfessional Regulation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
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

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of C.G.

This case involves an appeal by Jessie Roy Galloway (Father) against an order suspending his state licenses due to unpaid child support, as sought by Kristi Lynn Galloway (Mother). The central legal question revolves around the interpretation and application of Chapter 232 of the Texas Family Code, which governs license suspensions as a child support enforcement mechanism. The appellate court determined that while the trial court possessed proper jurisdiction, it erred by suspending Father's licenses without sufficient evidence. Specifically, there was no proof of a court-ordered or agreed repayment schedule for the overdue child support, nor evidence that Father failed to comply with such a schedule, as required by sections 232.003(a)(2) and (3). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's license suspension order and rendered judgment denying Mother's request.

Child Support EnforcementLicense SuspensionTexas Family CodeStatutory ConstructionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewRepayment ScheduleDefault JudgmentJurisdictionDue Process
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 741 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