Texas Legal Cases

Date: September 23, 2013 Last Edit: April 13, 2016

ABC Texas and NFIB v. NLRB – Labor

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

NFIB joined with the Associated Builders & Contractors
Texas in challenging the accelerated union election rules issued by the NLRB.

Bostic v. Georgia Pacific – Legal Reform

Texas Supreme Court

In this case, Plaintiffs are attempting to undercut an earlier ruling that rejected testimony by asbestos plaintiffs’ experts who opine that any exposure to asbestos no matter how small is a substantial contributing factor to a plaintiff’s harm.  It is this theory that is the path for plaintiffs’ lawyers to sue even the most remote defendants because the theory equates any exposure with causation.

City of Dallas v. Highway
205 Farms
– Property Rights
10th Circuit

domain proceedings in Texas are initiated upon filing a condemnation petition
in court. Once the case is initiated, the Property Code requires the judge to
appoint special commissioners, who are assigned to determine the value of the
property. Once the commissioners file their report, the owner then has an
opportunity to file an objection, and to either challenge the eminent domain
action or the commissioner’s determination of value. But this case asks what
happens when the condemning authority fails to prosecute their case after
initiating eminent domain proceedings—where the process stalls during the “administrative”
portion of the case, such that the special commissioners never submit a report
from which the landowner can appeal. We filed here to encourage the Texas
Supreme Court to take the case because there must be some opportunity for a
landowner to lift a cloud on the title of his property once emminent domain
proceedings have begun; accordingly, we argued that the landowner should be
enabled to seek a dismissal for want of prosecution if the condemning authority
unreasonably fails to move the proceedings forward.

DR Horton — Employment Arbitration Agreements

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

This appeal involves a
dispute over whether employers can require employees to agree to resolve
employment disputes through arbitration, rather than through the courts. The
NLRB contends that it is an unfair labor practice for an employment contract to
contain a waiver of class action rights and to instead provide that disputes
shall be resolved individually through arbitration. NFIB has defended
employment arbitration agreements, which allow employers to resolve disputes
expeditiously and without court costs.

In re Longview Energy
– Legal Reform
Texas Supreme Court

This case involves whether
Texas’s $25 million appeal bond cap, enacted as part of the state’s 2003 tort
reform package, should be applied per judgment or per defendant. The trial
court required a $100 million+ bond by multiplying the $25 million by four
defendants, rather than allowing them to post a single $25 million bond. 
The intermediate appellate court reversed.  Our amicus brief argues the
bond applies per judgment. 

Texas v. Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. – Property
Texas Supreme Court

The State of Texas appeals a
decision awarding compensation to a billboard owner. Here the State required
the billboard removed for a highway expansion project. NFIB Legal Center filed
to make clear that billboard owners deserve compensation whenever government
requires removal, and that the compensation award should take into account the
potential revenue that the billboard could bring for a prospective buyer.

Texas v. United State
Regulatory Reform

U.S. Supreme Court


The State of Texas filed suit
challenging President Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Setting aside
the controversial policy issues presented in this case, NFIB Small Business
Legal Center honed on a narrow question of administrative law—one that comes up
time-and-again in other contests. Specifically, NFIB’s amicus brief in this
case argued that the President’s actions amounted to substantive changes in the
regulatory scheme, which should have gone through a notice-and-comment process
wherein the public would have had an opportunity to voice concerns and to raise
important issues. As NFIB has argued previously, the federal government should
not be allowed to change substantive rules without going through the formal
process required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

 Status: PENDING. Amicus
brief filed 4/8/16.

T-Mobile v. City of Roswell – Regulatory
U.S. Supreme Court (originated in TX)

The issue in the case is whether a local governmental
authority complies with the requirement in the Telecommunications Act of 1996
that any denial of an application to install a wireless communication facility
be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence” if it fails to
specify any reasons for its denial. Prior to the 1996 Act, local zoning
authorities often dragged their feet or otherwise sought to prevent
telecommunications companies from siting vital infrastructure (such as the cell
phone towers at issue here) in their communities.  The Act was designed to
fix that problem by requiring denials to be subject to effective judicial

University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
– Employment Discrimination
Supreme Court VICTORY!

NFIB filed a brief
supporting the University of Texas in a retaliation claim. Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an
employee “because [the employee] has opposed an employment practice made
unlawful” by Title VII or “has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” under
Title VII. In this case, the Court will decide whether an employee alleging
retaliation in violation of Title VII satisfies the burden of proof by
establishing that retaliation was a motivating factor in an adverse employment
decision, or whether the employee must instead go further and prove that the
employer would not have taken the adverse action but for the improper motive.


If you have a case that impacts
small business, please contact us at 1-800-552-NFIB or email us at [email protected] as we are actively looking
for opportunities to weigh in on important issues in this state. NFIB Small
Business Legal Center is involved in many cases that impact this state and
others; to see our complete list of Supreme Court cases click on Washington, DC
on the interactive map.

Thank You


Subscribe For Free News And Tips

Enter your email to get FREE small business insights. Learn more

Get to know NFIB

NFIB is a member-driven organization advocating on behalf of small and independent businesses nationwide.

Learn More

Or call us today

© 2001 - 2018 National Federation of Independent Business. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy