CADENA COMERCIAL USA CORP. D/B/A OXXO, Appellant v. TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION, Appellee
449 S.W.3d 154
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Cadena seeks a wine and beer retailer’s off-premise permit from the TABC for its Texas locations.
- Cadena is a subsidiary of FEMSA; FEMSA indirectly holds interests in Heineken brewers and related entities with cross-tier connections.
- TABC protests Cadena’s permit, alleging violations of tied-house prohibitions in the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code.
- Parties stipulate undisputed Cadena-FEMSA-Heineken relationships; TABC asserts even non-controlling, cross-tier interests violate section 102.07(a)(1).
- County judge denies the permit; Cadena sues for judicial review; district court affirms; Cadena appeals arguing statutory construction and vagueness/equal-protection challenges.
- Texas appellate court affirms, holding FEMSA’s indirect interests in brewers and Cadena violate 102.07(a)(1) and upholding denial under 61.43(a)(9).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 102.07(a)(1) the 'interest' scope | Cadena: 'interest' requires cross-tier control; narrow reading avoids veil-piercing. | TABC: 'interest' broad includes financial/economic stakes crossing tiers; no control needed. | Interest is broad; cross-tier financial interests violate 102.07(a)(1). |
| Whether the statute requires actual control or permits broader reach | Cadena urges only actual control triggers prohibitions; seeks equal protection. | TABC: no control standard; broad interests suffice to prevent tied-house concerns. | No control requirement; broad cross-tier interests violate the statute. |
| Application of 61.43(a)(9) to sustain denial | Cadena argues equal protection and vagueness concerns; enforcement limitations exist. | TABC: record shows prohibited cross-tier relationship; denial supported by statute. | Denial sustained under 61.43(a)(9). |
Key Cases Cited
- Neel v. Texas Liquor Control Bd., 259 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1953, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (historical tied-house context and liberally construed provisions)
- Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. 1980) (fair notice in regulatory statutes; practical certainty standard)
- Texas Liquor Control Bd. v. Attic Club, Inc., 457 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1970) (vagueness considerations in regulatory statutes)
- Garza v. Texas Alcoholic Bev. Comm’n, 138 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (substantial-evidence standard and basis for affirming agency decisions)
- In re Ford Motor Co., S.W.3d (Tex. 2014) (statutory construction approach and deference to text)