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

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
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. 2-03-152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. F/K/A Affordable Inspections, Inc. and John Fox

Jacqueline Head appealed a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. and John Fox. Head argued that her DTPA claims were wrongly barred by a professional services exemption, and a limitation of liability clause should not apply to her breach of contract and negligence claims. The Court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Head's DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, along with her negligence and breach of contract claims. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment concerning Head's claim for breach of express warranty under the DTPA and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding these specific issues to the trial court for further proceedings.

Real Estate InspectionSummary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionLimitation of LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceExpress WarrantyUnconscionabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
52
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. 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

McCollum v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation

Carolyn McCollum sued the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) after being terminated from the Texas Cosmetology Commission (Commission), alleging race, age, disability discrimination, and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. She initially filed complaints with the EEOC and TWC. The trial court granted the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting McCollum's federal claims were barred by sovereign immunity and state claims were untimely due to delayed filing and service. On appeal, McCollum abandoned her federal claims, focusing on her state law claims under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the 60-day period for filing and serving suit under Texas Labor Code § 21.254 is not a jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing it from other mandatory jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McCollum's state claims to proceed.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTimely filingTimely serviceJurisdictional requirementsAppellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Rylander v. Bandag Licensing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General from a district court judgment that awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) recovery of franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. BLC, an Iowa corporation, held a certificate of authority to do business in Texas but had no physical presence or conducted intrastate business in the state, operating solely through interstate commerce. The Comptroller's assessment of franchise taxes, based solely on BLC's certificate of authority, was challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority did not establish a "substantial nexus" with Texas required by the Commerce Clause, nor did it satisfy the minimum contacts for the Due Process Clause. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to BLC, ruling that the amended Tax Code § 112.108, which prohibits such fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, was unconstitutional as an unreasonable financial barrier to court access.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseSubstantial NexusPhysical PresenceDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesGovernmental ImmunityTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. 2015-05-0415
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2016

Leas, Anthony v. Opus Inspection, Inc., et al.

The employee, Anthony Leas, alleged a left foot and ankle injury sustained while working as an inspector for Opus Inspection, Inc. The employer denied the claim after the authorized treating physician, Dr. Joseph Wieck, opined that the injuries were not primarily work-related. Leas sought expedited benefits, but the trial court denied them, finding no additional information was needed. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Leas failed to present medical evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness given to the authorized physician's opinion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee Injury ClaimFoot and Ankle InjuryWork-Related Injury CausationMedical OpinionExpedited HearingBenefits DenialTrial Court AffirmationRemandPro Se Appellant
References
1
Case No. 03-99-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, as Successor to John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, as Successor to Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Bandag Licensing Corporation

This case involves an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas from a district court judgment. The district court awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) a recovery of $503,726 in franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. The central issue was whether BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority to do business in Texas, without physical presence or intrastate business, constituted a 'substantial nexus' for franchise tax purposes under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that such passive possession was insufficient for taxation. Furthermore, the court found section 112.108 of the Texas Tax Code, which prohibited attorney's fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, unconstitutional, thereby upholding the award of attorney's fees to BLC.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActGovernmental ImmunitySubstantial NexusCertificate of AuthorityInterstate CommerceTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 717 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