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. W2001-00745-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

Jessie Anthony v. Melbourne Holland

Jessie Lee Anthony appealed a trial court judgment that found the defendant's negligence was not the proximate cause of his injuries. Mr. Anthony sustained a herniated disc after a rear-end collision with Melbourne C. Holland. While Mr. Holland admitted liability for the collision, he contested that it caused Mr. Anthony's specific back injury, citing prior back issues. The trial court determined Mr. Anthony failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that medical expert testimony only suggested a possibility, not a probability, that the collision caused the herniated disc.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentRear-end CollisionCausationPreponderance of EvidenceHerniated DiscMedical Expert TestimonyBiomechanical AnalysisAppellate ReviewBack Injury
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03392
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of State of New York v. Anthony R.

This case concerns the appeal of an order civilly committing Anthony R. as a dangerous sex offender under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Anthony R. had a history of sex offenses and prior confinement, followed by release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). After a period of compliance, he violated SIST conditions due to changes in his medication and treatment. The Supreme Court ordered his recommitment based on these violations, including substance abuse and aggressive non-sexual behavior. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the State failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Anthony R. is *presently unable* to control his sexual conduct. The court found no persuasive link between his non-sexual SIST violations and an inability to control sexual behavior. The case was remanded for a new commitment order, clarifying that Anthony R. requires continued strict and intensive supervision, but not confinement.

Mental Hygiene LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentSISTMental AbnormalityDangerousness AssessmentControl BehaviorAppellate DivisionReversalRemand
References
6
Case No. 07-18-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2019

Anthony LoCascio and Nicolas LoCascio v. Nina LoCascio Mongrain and Charles Mongrain

This case involves a dispute between four siblings over the division of a family ranch after their mother's death, stemming from a Rule 11 settlement agreement. Appellants Anthony and Nicolas LoCascio sued Appellees Nina LoCascio Mongrain and Charles Mongrain for breach of contract, and the Mongrains counterclaimed. The jury found both parties breached, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that Anthony and Nicolas take nothing on their initial claims. However, it reversed and rendered the monetary damages and attorney's fees awarded to Nina and Charles, finding insufficient evidence and that Anthony and Nicolas did not breach the agreement. The court also granted declaratory relief, validating the partition deed conveying the south tract to Anthony and Nicolas.

Probate disputeSettlement agreement breachFamily ranch divisionReal property partitionRule 11 agreementBreach of contractAttorney's feesAppellate reviewContract interpretationLegal sufficiency of evidence
References
31
Case No. 13-13-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Octavio Raya v. Rio Management Company, LLC and Wyatt Hidalgo Farms, Inc.

Appellant Octavio Raya appealed the trial court's decision affirming an arbitrator's take-nothing judgment in favor of appellees Rio Management Company, LLC and Wyatt Hidalgo Farms, Inc. Raya, an employee of Rio, had signed an arbitration agreement and subsequently suffered injuries on Wyatt's property, leading him to sue both entities. He contended that Wyatt, an affiliated company, was not a proper party to the arbitration agreement due to a misnomer and lack of direct signatory status. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Wyatt was bound by the arbitration agreement as an affiliated entity of Rio, and any misnomer did not invalidate the agreement. Consequently, Raya's claims against both Rio and Wyatt were properly subjected to arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementNonsignatory BindingCorporate AffiliationMisnomerFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment ConfirmationTake-Nothing JudgmentAppellate Review StandardContract FormationScope of Employment
References
23
Case No. 03-11-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2012

Refugio Robles Rayas v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Refugio Robles Rayas, a citizen of Mexico injured while working in Texas on an H-2B visa, appealed the transfer of venue in his workers' compensation claim. He initially filed suit in Maverick County against Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP). The trial court granted the motions to transfer venue and moved the suit to Travis County, where it subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual and ICSOP. Rayas argued that Maverick County was the mandatory and proper venue because of its proximity to his residence in Mexico, as per the Texas Labor Code. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the labor code's mandatory venue provision for the employee's county of residence did not apply to a non-resident of Texas. Consequently, the general venue rule, making Travis County a proper venue due to Texas Mutual's principal place of business, was correctly applied. The court also rejected Rayas's arguments regarding violations of the 'open courts' provision and due process rights.

Workers' CompensationVenue TransferJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Civil Practice & Remedies CodeOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessNon-resident Claimant
References
24
Case No. PD-0974-15
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Robinson, Olin Anthony

This legal brief concerns a petition for discretionary review filed by Olin Anthony Robinson with the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, challenging a decision by the Court of Appeals. Robinson, initially granted "shock probation" by the trial court in Jackson County, faced an appeal from the State of Texas which led to a remand for an evidentiary hearing. Despite the hearing, the trial court reaffirmed Robinson's shock probation, prompting another appeal from the State. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's order, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Robinson's brief argues that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory interpretation, failed to address his contentions, and lacked the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction for a direct appeal of a shock probation order.

Shock ProbationContinuing JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStare DecisisSubject-Matter JurisdictionCourt of Criminal AppealsTexas Law
References
16
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

The People v. Anthony Debellis

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Anthony Debellis for criminal possession of a weapon, ordering a new trial. The Court found that Debellis's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the statutory defense of voluntary surrender, which was supported by Debellis's testimony. Instead, counsel sought an inapplicable charge on temporary and lawful possession. The dissenting opinion argued that no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supported a voluntary surrender charge and that counsel's overall performance was not deficient.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective CounselJury InstructionsVoluntary Surrender DefenseCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReversalNew TrialLegal EthicsConstitutional Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

This case addresses the liability of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) as an "owner" under Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff, David Anthony, an employee of Richards "Of Course", was injured after falling from a billboard located on Conrail's right-of-way. The billboard had been mistakenly believed to be on Martisco Plumbing Corporation's property, which collected rent for it. The court found no evidence of Conrail's awareness, consent, or benefit from the billboard, nor any control over the work site. Citing precedent, the court determined that Conrail did not have the requisite nexus to the work or the structure to be considered an "owner" under the statute, and therefore dismissed the claims against it.

Labor Law § 240Owner LiabilityConstruction AccidentBillboard FallRight-of-WayTrespasser StatusLease AgreementThird-Party LiabilityPremises LiabilityProperty Ownership Dispute
References
4
Case No. E1999-02206-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2001

State s. Anthony Lynn Wyrick

Anthony Lynn Wyrick was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to life without parole. He appealed on several grounds, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The court found that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the defendant to cross-examine the victim on the prior false accusation of rape, deeming it necessary for a fair determination of the case given the reliance on the victim's testimony.

Aggravated RapeCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceIn-Court IdentificationPrior False AccusationImpeachmentCross-ExaminationDue ProcessConstitutional LawRecidivist Statute
References
109
Case No. M2002-01046-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2003

State of Tennessee v. Anthony Nathaniel Guerard

The defendant, Anthony Nathaniel Guerard, appealed his sentences after his judicial diversion probation was revoked following new charges of reckless endangerment and attempted robbery. He argued that his sentences were excessive and that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing. The trial court had imposed an effective sentence of seven years, citing the defendant's untruthfulness during the sentencing hearing and his prior non-compliance with release conditions. The appellate court reviewed the application of enhancement and mitigating factors, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment, concluding that the sentences were proper and the denial of alternative sentencing was justified.

Criminal AppealSentencingJudicial DiversionProbation RevocationAggravated AssaultReckless EndangermentAttempted RobberyConsecutive SentencesAlternative SentencingEnhancement Factors
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 389 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