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. 05-12-00223-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Skief, Tiwian Laquinn

Tiwian Laquinn Skief was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, raising four issues, including errors in jury instructions on self-defense, jury contamination, confrontation clause violations, and improper jury argument. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the self-defense limitation instruction, that Skief failed to preserve his argument regarding jury admonishment, and that his confrontation clause rights were not violated by the admission of an excited utterance to a co-worker. Lastly, Skief failed to preserve his argument concerning improper jury argument.

Murder ConvictionSelf-DefenseJury Charge ErrorConfrontation ClauseExcited UtteranceHearsay ExceptionJury ArgumentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Rights
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1951

Wade v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N

This case concerns a Workmen's Compensation claim filed by Wade et al. against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association following the death of Henry G. Wade, attributed to chlorine gas inhalation during his employment at Dow Chemical Company. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, citing improper closing arguments by the petitioners' counsel. The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the objection to the argument was timely and if the argument's effect was "curable." The Court ultimately found that any potential error in the argument was waived due to the respondent's delay in objecting. Additionally, the Court affirmed the admissibility of Mr. Wade's declarations as res gestae. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the original trial court judgment.

Workmen's CompensationIndustrial AccidentChlorine Gas InhalationBronchial PneumoniaClosing ArgumentJury ArgumentWaiver of ObjectionCurable ErrorIncurable ErrorRes Gestae
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borgen v. State

The appellant, Borgen, was convicted of sexual abuse, a conviction that the Houston Court of Appeals subsequently reversed due to unobjected-to improper prosecutorial jury argument during the guilt phase of the trial. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending that the appellant waived any impropriety by failing to object at trial. This court considered whether the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial that it constituted reversible error despite the lack of objection or if due process was violated. The court concluded that while the argument was improper, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal without an objection, distinguishing it from cases where an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other grounds of error.

Prosecutorial MisconductJury ArgumentWaiver of ErrorDue ProcessSexual AbuseCriminal LawAppellate ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsHarmful Error
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wade

This appeal concerns a workmen's compensation suit initiated by Ettie Mae Wade et al. against Texas Employers Insurance Association, seeking compensation for Henry G. Wade's death, allegedly caused by employment injuries at Dow Chemical Company. A jury found for the appellees, awarding a lump sum. The appellant challenged the admission of hearsay testimony under the res gestae rule and argued improper and inflammatory statements by appellees' counsel during closing arguments. While the court upheld the trial court's discretion on the res gestae issue, it found portions of the closing argument to be prejudicial and improper. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to these errors in counsel's argument.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental DeathIndustrial Accident BoardHearsay Rule ExceptionRes GestaeAttorney MisconductClosing ArgumentJury PrejudiceReversible ErrorTrial Court Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. Barney's Clothing Store

A claimant appealed an award for disability due to a myocardial infarction. The board found that an argument with his supervisor about pay led to severe chest pain, and medical evidence supported that excitement from the argument, superimposed on a prior cardiac condition, caused the infarction. The claimant testified to a 20-minute argument with his assistant manager about overtime pay, during which he threatened to go home and experienced chest pains. The court, however, found no legally sufficient basis for the board's finding of an accident, stating the situation did not involve emotional tension greater than typical workplace irritations and was not exceptional enough to meet established legal tests for accident. Consequently, the decision and award were reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board.

myocardial infarctionworkplace argumentemotional stressworkers' compensationcardiac pathologydisability awardlegal precedentmedical evidenceappealboard finding
References
3
Case No. 06-05-00014-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Dorothy De Los Santos v. Healthmark Park Manor, L.P.

Dorothy De Los Santos appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted against her in a slip-and-fall case against her employer, Healthmark Park Manor, L.P. The trial court's summary judgment was based on a no-evidence theory. The appellate court, applying the legal sufficiency standard, reviewed De Los Santos's argument that Healthmark was liable under premises liability theories, specifically whether Healthmark had actual or constructive knowledge of a bottle of hand sanitizer on the floor. The court found no evidence to establish that Healthmark had or should have had knowledge of the condition. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment. A subsequent motion for rehearing, which attempted to reframe the argument as a pure negligence claim with vicarious liability, was denied because the argument was not presented in the original brief.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentNegligenceVicarious LiabilitySlip and FallEmployer LiabilityInvitee StatusActual KnowledgeConstructive Knowledge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Dempsey

J. T. Dempsey, an employee, sustained multiple burns in Hockley County, Texas, on November 5, 1948, while moving an oil derrick, leading to a workman's compensation claim against Highway Insurance Underwriters and R. B. Morse. The jury found permanent partial incapacity, awarding Dempsey $25 per week for 377 weeks, with credit for 24 weeks already paid. Appellant contended improper argument by appellee’s counsel and erroneous admission of testimony regarding Dr. Dupre’s financial interest. The court found no reversible error in counsel's argument, noting that any initial injury was cured by instruction and later arguments were not objected to or were considered harmless. The court also upheld the admission of Dr. Dupre's testimony to show bias. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Workman's CompensationPersonal InjuryElectric ShockPermanent IncapacityPartial IncapacityJury VerdictImproper ArgumentWitness BiasMedical ExpertAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. State

Jimmy Dee Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment for killing Butch Monday, the husband of his long-term mistress, Terri Monday. On appeal, Wilson raised several points of error, including improper statements by the State during closing arguments, failure to exclude witness testimony, sufficiency of the evidence, errors in the trial court's jury charge regarding sudden passion and apparent danger, and the admission of evidence of extraneous offenses or bad acts (telephone harassment, drug sales, treatment of Terri's children, carrying a handgun, and worker's compensation fraud). The appellate court addressed each point, finding no merit in Wilson's arguments. Specifically, it found the State's closing arguments permissible, the witness testimony properly admitted (or error harmless), and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The court also determined that the jury charge adequately covered apparent danger and that, while the admission of testimony regarding Wilson selling Vicodin to Terri was erroneous, it did not substantially influence the jury's verdict. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

MurderCriminal AppealSelf-defense ArgumentSudden Passion DefenseJury Argument ProprietyWitness ExclusionEvidence Sufficiency ReviewJury Charge ErrorExtraneous OffensesRule 403
References
41
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 2,979 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