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. E1999-00102-COA-R10-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

D. A. Price v. P. C. Price

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a decision from the Blount County Circuit Court concerning a custody modification. The trial court had changed the children's physical custody from joint to sole custody for the mother, P. C. Price, primarily due to the father, D. A. Price, moving to Knoxville. Crucially, this change occurred during a hearing initially limited to determining if a temporary injunction, granting the mother temporary custody, should continue. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by making a permanent custody change without allowing both parties a full and fair hearing on the change of circumstances. Additionally, the appellate court determined there was no finding of irreparable harm to justify continuing the temporary injunction. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the original joint custody arrangement, and remanded the case for a comprehensive trial on the custody modification issue.

Custody DisputeJoint CustodyChange of CustodyTemporary InjunctionIrreparable HarmAppellate ReviewRemandParental RelocationChild's Best InterestHomosexual Parent
References
10
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
Feb 21, 2006

Price v. Jefferson County

Larklynn Price, an African-American former employee of Jefferson County, brought an action alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and equal protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Price claimed discriminatory reassignments, a frozen salary, denied promotions, and wrongful termination due to her race. The County moved for summary judgment, citing Price's poor attendance, excessive personal telephone use, and issues with office filing. The court granted summary judgment for Jefferson County on Price's federal § 1983 claims, finding no evidence that she was treated differently than similarly situated individuals based on race, nor that her alleged injuries stemmed from a discriminatory official county policy or custom. The court also determined that Price's retaliation claim was not actionable under § 1983 via the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, Price's state law claims under the TCHRA were remanded to the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Texas Commission on Human Rights ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation Theory
References
230
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2007

Willard J. Price Associates, LLC v. Stateside Construction, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the denial of Stateside's motion to dismiss indemnification and contribution claims brought by Price. Price, the site owner, had settled an underlying personal injury action and subsequently sued its construction manager, Stateside, based on an indemnity clause. Stateside argued that a conflict of interest warranted dismissal, stemming from a previous attorney disqualification in the underlying action where an attorney hired by Price's insurer sued Stateside. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, distinguishing the current case by noting that while a key individual (Moragianis) wholly owned Proto (Price's property manager) and Stateside, he only held a minority interest in Price, thereby mitigating the alleged conflict of interest, especially with the retention of new, independent counsel.

IndemnificationContributionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationCorporate OwnershipLLCInsuranceConstruction WorkerPersonal InjuryThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tex. Employers' Ass'n v. Price

This appeal concerns a worker's compensation claim filed by Price, a Texas employee of Goetting, who sustained an injury in New Mexico while on temporary assignment. Goetting held workers' compensation insurance in both Texas (with the appellant, Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n) and New Mexico. Price received compensation under the New Mexico policy, leading the appellant to contend against double recovery and that Price's claim was barred due to late filing. The court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Price was indeed a Texas employee covered by the Texas policy, that obtaining compensation under both state policies was not against public policy, and that sufficient good cause was demonstrated for the delay in filing due to Price's incapacitation and assurances from the insurer's agent. The court further upheld the method for calculating Price's compensation.

Workers' CompensationInterstate Employment InjuryInsurance Coverage DisputeTimeliness of ClaimGood Cause ExceptionDouble RecoveryTexas LawNew Mexico LawEmployer LiabilityMedical Assessment
References
16
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Appellant Bonnie F. Price appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) concerning her claim of bad faith in handling two workers' compensation claims. Price's initial workers' compensation claims were settled in March 1988, after which she initiated a separate bad faith claim against TEIA. TEIA successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, asserting that Price's bad faith claim was barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel due to the prior settlement judgment, that her previous agreements constituted judicial admissions, and that evidence negated essential elements of her bad faith claim. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment, focusing on the applicability of collateral estoppel and judicial admissions stemming from the prior workers' compensation settlement. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that TEIA had successfully proven its affirmative defenses and negated elements of Price's bad faith claim.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial AdmissionSettlement AgreementAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier Liability
References
11
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,055 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