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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
Case No. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Stacy Sanders filed a class action lawsuit against Gold Key Lease, Inc. and other defendants, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state laws. Sanders claimed that the defendants failed to disclose that interest earned on a refundable security deposit constituted a finance charge in her lease agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Sanders' lease was not covered by TILA because her total contractual obligation exceeded the statutory $25,000 limit. The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the plaintiff's total contractual obligation surpassed $25,000, thereby exempting the lease from TILA's disclosure requirements. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the case without prejudice.

Consumer LeasingTruth in Lending ActTILASecurity DepositFinance Charge DisclosureMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionContractual Obligation LimitClosed-End LeaseFederal Court
References
11
Case No. 12-0657
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The plaintiff sought to invalidate a lease and recover rent and security, alleging mutual mistake or defendant's fraud concerning zoning regulations. The plaintiff intended to use the premises for "iron work," but the property, formerly business-zoned, had become residential, though a prior nonconforming use existed. The lease stipulated the tenant's responsibility for obtaining a certificate of occupancy and complying with laws, explicitly stating no landlord representation regarding ironwork use. The court found the plaintiff was fully informed about the zoning issues, including legal representation during lease signing. Consequently, the claims of mistake and fraud were deemed untenable, leading to a judgment for the defendant, dismissal of the complaint, and an award of $375 to the landlord for three months' rent.

Zoning RegulationsNonconforming UseLease ValidityContract FraudMutual MistakeTenant ResponsibilityCertificate of OccupancyRent ArrearsProperty LawJudicial Dismissal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,509 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