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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Limon v. State

Eleven bar owners (appellants) challenged the constitutionality of new "good conduct" bond requirements in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against enforcement by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (the Commission). The trial court found the bond provisions constitutional and denied relief. The appellate court ruled that the appellants had standing to challenge the actual imposition of the bonds as a prerequisite for licenses but lacked standing to challenge the forfeiture provisions, as no bond had been forfeited. The court reviewed the bond requirements under a rational basis test, upholding them against due process and equal protection challenges. The judgment of the trial court was modified to reflect the standing limitations and then affirmed.

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAlcoholic Beverage CodePolice PowerLicense RenewalRational Basis Review
References
35
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Houston Ass'n of Alcoholic Beverage Permit Holders v. City of Houston

The Houston Association of Alcoholic Beverage Permit Holders challenged the City of Houston Ordinance No. 2006-1054, which bans smoking in public places including bars. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing the ordinance was preempted by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code and unconstitutionally vague. Presided over by District Judge Gray H. Miller, the court denied the motion. The decision found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that an injunction would serve the public interest, citing strong scientific evidence on the harms of secondhand smoke.

Preliminary InjunctionSmoking BanOrdinance ChallengeTexas LawPreemptionConstitutional VaguenessPublic HealthEconomic ImpactBar OwnersHouston
References
25
Case No. 03-05-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, Inc.

The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation (the "Division") promulgated a rule (28 Tex. Admin. Code § 133.309) to create a less expensive alternative review procedure for workers' compensation claims concerning the necessity of medical treatment. The Insurance Council of Texas, Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Envoy Medical Systems, L.P. (the "Joint Appellees") challenged the rule's validity in a declaratory judgment action. The district court granted the Joint Appellees' motion for summary judgment, declaring the rule invalid. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the rule was not in harmony with relevant governing statutes that allowed for judicial review of medical necessity disputes.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentMedical Necessity DisputesAlternative Dispute ResolutionAgency Rule ValidityTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 9,952 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