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. 02-21-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Todd Gallaher v. Denton Media Company, Inc. D/B/A Denton Record Chronicle

Appellant Todd Gallaher, a political consultant, sued Appellee Denton Media Company, Inc. d/b/a Denton Record-Chronicle for defamation, alleging libelous statements in a series of articles. The articles detailed allegations of Gallaher's misconduct during the 2008 primary election, claiming he was "charged," "prosecuted," and "sentenced" for misrepresentation of identity. Gallaher also contended defamation regarding statements that he declined to comment for the articles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Newspaper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that some claims were time-barred, statements about charges were protected by the statutory defense of truth for public concern, and statements about declining comment were not defamatory.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code
References
24
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 07-10-0367-CR; 07-10-0368-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2010

Carlos Vigil v. State

This appellate decision concerns two criminal appeals from Carlos Vigil. The appellate court noted that neither the clerk's record nor the reporter's records were filed, and appellant's counsel sought to withdraw, citing non-employment and appellant's affidavit of indigence. The court abated the appeals and remanded the causes to the trial court to determine if Vigil wished to prosecute the appeals, his indigence, and his entitlement to a free appellate record and appointed counsel. Additionally, the decision addresses issues related to Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. (LLC) and KK Glass in a separate but consolidated aspect of the case, concerning a death case (Jimmy Harrison). The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence for gross negligence against LLC but deemed the $500,000 compensatory damages for pain and mental anguish factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur to $50,000. The summary judgment granted to KK Glass, denying LLC's claims for contribution and indemnity, was affirmed.

Criminal AppealIndecency with a ChildAppellate ProcedureAbatement and RemandIndigence DeterminationRight to CounselWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
35
Case No. 05-14-01448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Delores Rubio, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Willie Pedro Rubio, Jr. v. Excell Electrical Contractors, Inc.

This order addresses an appeal initially dismissed due to the appellant's failure to pay for the clerk's record. Appellant Delores Rubio, representing the estate of Willie Pedro Rubio, Jr., filed a motion for reinstatement and abatement. The appellant sought to abate the appeal to allow for the resolution of a dispute concerning workers' compensation death benefits through an administrative process, involving the appellee's insurer, Service Lloyd Insurance Co. The trial court had previously granted summary judgment to Excell Electrical Contractors, Inc., concluding that the appellant, as the deceased's parent, could not recover exemplary damages for wrongful death, as workers' compensation benefits constituted her sole remedy. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, vacated its prior dismissal, and reinstated the appeal. Additionally, the court ordered the appellant to provide verification regarding the reporter's record and a status report on the administrative contested case hearing.

appellate proceduremotion for reinstatementabatementworkers' compensation benefitsexemplary damageswrongful deathclerk's recordreporter's recordsummary judgmentadministrative process
References
2
Case No. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. NUMBER 13-08-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Noe Morales, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Paulina Morales

This is a statutory construction case concerning the production of medical records and associated fees. Appellant Valley Baptist Medical Center (VBMC) appealed a district court order compelling it to provide medical records to Appellee Noe Morales, Jr., as administrator of an estate, without charge. Morales sought records under the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, while VBMC asserted its right to charge a reasonable fee under the Texas Health and Safety Code. The appellate court concluded that the statutes could be harmonized, affirming Morales's entitlement to the records but also VBMC's right to charge the statutory fee. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, requiring Morales to pay the $1,143.00 fee.

Statutory ConstructionMedical RecordsFees for RecordsTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Health and Safety CodeHospital LiabilityMandamusAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationHealthcare Law
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00809 [202 AD3d 469]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2022

Matter of Brooklyn Legal Servs. v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn.

The Matter of Brooklyn Legal Services v New York City Taxi & Limousine Commn. case, decided on February 8, 2022, by the Appellate Division, First Department, involved a petition to annul the denial of a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. Petitioner sought disclosure of certain records from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) concerning driver fitness interview decisions to assess fairness in licensing determinations. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. The Appellate Division reversed this judgment, ruling that the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) does not impose a blanket prohibition on all motor vehicle record disclosures, especially if personal information is redacted. The court found the record unclear on the feasibility of anonymizing the records and remanded the matter to Supreme Court for an in camera inspection to determine the extent of possible redaction and production. The court also denied attorneys' fees at this juncture.

Freedom of Information LawDriver's Privacy Protection ActPublic Records DisclosurePrivacy LawRedaction FeasibilityIn Camera ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTaxi and Limousine CommissionArticle 78 Proceeding
References
6
Case No. 04-11-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2011

Dora Gulley (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. State Farm Lloyds (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Dora Gulley sued State Farm Lloyds for additional insurance benefits after foundation damage from a plumbing leak was covered under the Dwelling Foundation Endorsement, subject to a 15% limitation, while Gulley sought coverage under a Water Damage Endorsement. Both parties filed competing summary judgment motions, which the trial court denied without making a substantive ruling on which endorsement applied, but certified an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in declining to decide the substantive legal issue presented by the competing summary judgment motions. The court clarified that section 51.014(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is not a mechanism for a certified question before a substantive ruling. Thus, the decision was reversed and remanded for the trial court to make a substantive ruling.

Insurance coverageHomeowners policyFoundation damagePlumbing leakEndorsement interpretationSummary judgmentInterlocutory appealAppellate procedureTrial court errorStatutory interpretation
References
15
Case No. 02-19-00374-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2020

David C. Morgan v. State

Appellant David C. Morgan appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated and felony repetition, raising five issues concerning alleged trial court errors. Morgan argued that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State's fingerprint expert to testify, introducing prior DWI charging instruments, limiting cross-examination of a key witness regarding workers' compensation, admitting 911 calls, and admitting certain medical records. The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that the fingerprint expert was qualified, the charging instruments were admissible public records, objections to 911 calls were not preserved, and the objection to medical records was addressed by the trial court. Consequently, Morgan's conviction and sentence of thirteen years' incarceration were upheld.

Criminal AppealDWI ConvictionFelony RepetitionEvidence AdmissibilityExpert Witness TestimonyFingerprint AnalysisHearsay ExceptionConfrontation Clause911 Call EvidenceMedical Records Review
References
32
Case No. 08-05-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2006

Johnnie Lee Carter v. Araceli Carter

Johnnie Lee Carter, acting pro se, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a default divorce judgment. He contended that he never received proper notice of the final hearing, leading to his non-appearance. Although the trial court granted a hearing on his motion to set aside the default, Carter failed to provide a reporter's record of this hearing to the appellate court. Without this record, the appellate court was unable to review the merits of his complaint or determine if the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, presuming the evidence presented to the trial court was adequate to support its decision.

Default JudgmentDivorceMotion for New TrialNotice of HearingPro Se AppellantAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureClerk's RecordReporter's RecordBurden of Proof
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 21,249 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