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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. M2017-02048-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2018

State of Tennessee v. Lance Loveless

Lance Loveless, former mayor of New Johnsonville, Tennessee, was charged with theft of property after allegedly misusing city resources. He directed a city employee to use a city-owned truck and gas card to retrieve his personal vehicle from South Carolina, during which the city truck broke down. The city covered tow and engine repair costs, which Loveless initially obscured. A jury convicted him of attempted theft, and the trial court denied judicial diversion due to his abuse of public trust and lack of remorse, ordering $5500 in restitution. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for attempted theft and upholding the denial of judicial diversion, noting his ineligibility for diversion as a public official for an offense committed in his official capacity.

TheftAttempted TheftPublic Official MisconductJudicial DiversionAbuse of TrustCriminal ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceSentencingRestitutionTennessee Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. State

Rosendo Guzman Ramirez was convicted of burglary of a vehicle after being found on a freight train in El Paso, Texas, along with other individuals. Railroad security officers discovered a broken seal on a trailer where Ramirez and others were apprehended. The State argued that Ramirez's attempt to obtain a free ride constituted theft of service, thereby demonstrating intent to commit theft for the burglary charge. However, the court reversed the conviction, clarifying that a freight train does not provide service for compensation. Therefore, "riding-the-rails" does not fulfill the criteria for theft of service under Texas Penal Code Section 31.04(a), and the intent to commit theft, a necessary element for burglary of a vehicle under Section 30.04, was not proven. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment of not guilty.

Texas Penal CodeBurglary of VehicleTheft of ServiceFreight TrainRosendo Guzman RamirezCriminal TrespassIntent to Commit TheftUndocumented WorkersEl PasoConviction Reversed
References
0
Case No. 13-18-00030-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Monica Melissa Patterson v. State

Monica Melissa Patterson appealed her convictions for capital murder, aggregate theft, misapplication of fiduciary property, and attempted theft in Hidalgo County, Texas. The case involved the death of Martin Knell, with allegations that Patterson orchestrated his murder for financial gain by manipulating his will and bank accounts. Patterson also faced charges for misapplying funds from Comfort House Services Inc., a non-profit organization where she served as administrator. Key evidence included Mascorro's testimony (witness to murder), phone records placing Patterson and Mario at Martin's residence, and financial records showing Patterson's transfers from Martin's accounts and unauthorized spending of Comfort funds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, addressing issues regarding sufficiency of evidence, jury charge errors, expert witness testimony, admission of recordings, and double jeopardy.

Capital MurderAggregate TheftMisapplication of Fiduciary PropertyAttempted TheftAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsExpert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceDouble Jeopardy
References
87
Case No. 03-05-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2007

Thomas O. Bennett, Jr. and James B. Bonham Corporation v. Randy Reynolds

This case involves an appeal by Thomas O. Bennett, Jr. and James B. Bonham Corporation against a judgment favoring Randy Reynolds. The jury found that Bennett, as president of Bonham Corporation, and the corporation itself, converted 13 of Reynolds's cattle, acted with malice, and committed felony theft, resulting in $5,327.11 in actual damages. Punitive damages of $250,000 against Bennett and $1 million against Bonham Corporation were also awarded. Appellants challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and argued that the punitive damages violated due process limitations due to their high ratio to actual damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's findings of cattle conversion, theft, and malice, and that the punitive awards, considering the extreme reprehensibility of the appellants' conduct including cover-up attempts and witness tampering, did not violate due process.

Cattle ConversionFelony TheftPunitive DamagesDue Process ChallengeMaliceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceCover-upWitness TamperingEconomic Damages
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
Case No. 01-11-00972-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2013

Tracy Brown v. Janet Kleerekoper

Tracy Brown sued Janet KleereKoper alleging breach of contract, theft of property, and theft of services under the Texas Theft Liability Act. A jury awarded Brown $20 for theft-of-services and $242 for breach-of-contract but found against him on the theft-of-property claim. As a result, KleereKoper was awarded $7,747.14 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the theft-of-property claim. Brown appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the award of attorney's fees to KleereKoper, and the constitutionality of the TTLA's 'loser pay' provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denials, that KleereKoper was a prevailing party, and that the TTLA's fee provisions are constitutional.

Theft of ServicesBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Theft Liability ActConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionOpen Courts Provision
References
23
Case No. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. ADJ2272286 (LAO 0873209)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

ENRIQUE CASTRO-AGUILAR vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if applicant's injuries were barred by the initial aggressor defense. The applicant, a security officer, was injured while using pepper spray and restraining a suspected shoplifter who was threatening him with a rock. The Board found that the applicant's actions, though potentially unauthorized in manner, were a good-faith attempt to prevent theft and did not constitute willful wrongdoing. Therefore, he was not the initial aggressor, and his claim for benefits is not barred.

initial aggressor defenseunauthorized mannerscope of employmentcourse of employmentaffirmative defensewillful wrongdoingintentional misconductreal present and apparent threat of bodily harmgood faith attemptprevent theft
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,416 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