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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otero v. Town of Southampton

The plaintiff, Otero, a school bus driver, sued the Town of Southampton, its Police Department, and Officer Andrew Mazzio under federal civil rights laws (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983) and state laws for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and excessive force. The claims arose from Otero's January 1999 arrest for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, following reports of erratic driving and his failure of sobriety tests after consuming Robitussin for a cold. Although Otero's blood tests later showed no alcohol or drugs, and the initial charges were dismissed, he eventually pled guilty to Failure to Maintain Lane. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that probable cause existed for the arrest and initial charges, no excessive force was used, and an alleged 'perp walk' did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court declined jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Civil Rights ActFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionExcessive ForceQualified ImmunityProbable CauseSummary JudgmentDriving While Intoxicated (DWI)Endangering Welfare of a Child
References
21
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03249
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hudson Excess Ins. Co.

This declaratory judgment action addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from an underlying personal injury claim. Plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Mayer Malbin Realty I, LLC sought defense and indemnity from Hudson Excess Insurance Company for an injury sustained by a worker at a construction site. Although aware of potential coverage in October 2017, plaintiffs did not tender notice to Hudson until May 2020. Hudson subsequently disclaimed coverage due to this significant delay. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court ruled that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing Hudson was not prejudiced by the late notice, which hindered Hudson's ability to conduct a timely investigation.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageLate NoticePrejudice DefenseAdditional InsuredSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ActionConstruction Site AccidentSubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies

This declaratory judgment action addresses the hierarchy of excess insurance policies in a situation where one policy is primary for owned vehicles but excess for non-owned, and the second is an umbrella policy covering multiple risks. The case stems from an accident involving a rented van, which led to a $650,000 settlement. After the primary insurer paid $500,000, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Co. each contributed $75,000, pending a determination of their respective excess coverage obligations. The Supreme Court initially ruled for ratable contribution. However, citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, the appellate court reversed, holding that Northbrook's umbrella policy constitutes a final tier of coverage, not required to contribute ratably with Chubb's excess policy. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Northbrook, entitling it to a $75,000 reimbursement from Chubb.

Excess InsuranceUmbrella InsuranceDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeAutomobile Liability InsuranceNon-Owned VehicleRatable ContributionFinal Tier CoverageSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2012

Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locke v. Bralley

William T. Locke, a minor, filed suit through his mother against Sheriff W. G. Bralley and his surety, Globe Indemnity Company, seeking damages for personal injuries. Locke was shot in the hand, leading to its amputation, while fleeing an illicit still during an attempted arrest by law enforcement officers from Wichita and Archer counties. The plaintiff alleged excessive force was used, resulting in his severe injury and loss of earning capacity. A jury trial denied relief, finding Locke was operating a still, the shot was fired by Deputy Kinkaid without intent to kill, and no excessive force was used by Bralley or his deputies. Despite the jury's finding of no damages, which was noted as contrary to undisputed facts, the judgment was affirmed on appeal, upholding the jury's findings regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and the force employed.

ArrestExcessive ForceFelonyIllicit StillJury FindingsDamagesAmputationSheriff LiabilitySurety BondCriminal Procedure
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,648 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