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

People v. Campos

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting her of murder in the second degree. The appeal challenged the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to two black prospective jurors during jury selection, arguing Batson violations. The appellate court found the prosecutor's explanations for these challenges pretextual, as they were not sufficiently related to the facts of the case. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered based on the Batson challenges. The Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress statements to law enforcement authorities was affirmed, finding the statements voluntary.

Batson ChallengePeremptory ChallengesJury SelectionCriminal AppealMurder Second DegreeSuppression MotionVoluntary StatementsPretextual ExplanationsRacial DiscriminationNew Trial Ordered
References
9
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
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brumfield v. Exxon Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a personal injury lawsuit where Jerry W. Brumfield, injured by spraying gas, sued Exxon Corporation for negligence. Brumfield appealed two key rulings: the trial court's decision to overrule his Batson challenge, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, and its refusal to issue a jury instruction on spoliation of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Brumfield failed to preserve his objection to the Batson challenge and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the spoliation instruction, as there was no proof of intentional evidence destruction.

Batson challengeSpoliation of evidenceJury instructionRacial discriminationPeremptory challengesCivil procedureAppellate reviewProcedural defaultEvidence lawTrial court discretion
References
17
Case No. 06-09-00147-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2010

Lee Edward Morris v. State

Lee Edward Morris was convicted of two counts of cocaine delivery, with enhanced punishment due to prior felony convictions and one delivery occurring in a drug-free zone, resulting in concurrent sentences of fifty and seventy-five years. On appeal, Morris challenged the trial court's overruling of a Batson challenge, and other alleged errors concerning jury selection, an unrecorded bench conference, and comments on his right not to testify. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the Batson ruling and that other claims were unpreserved. The court also rejected Morris's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, concluding he failed to demonstrate counsel's ineffectiveness.

Criminal LawDrug DeliveryCocaineFelony ConvictionDrug-Free ZoneBatson ChallengePeremptory StrikesRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wint

This case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant, Wint, of attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. Previously, the case was remanded for a Batson hearing to assess the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for peremptory challenges. Following the hearing, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's Batson objection. The appellate court reviewed the prosecutor's explanations for challenging five African-American prospective jurors, including reasons related to 'non-relation' with a son, difficulty hearing, failure to report a robbery, familiarity with the crime location, employment as social workers, and peculiar appearance. The court found that the explanations were facially race-neutral and that the defendant failed to demonstrate pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the conviction was unanimously affirmed.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationappellate reviewattempted murderassaultweapon possessionsecond felony offenderrace-neutral explanations
References
23
Case No. 13-03-229-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2006

Perry Lee Wooten v. State

Perry Lee Wooten, former Constable of Harris County Precinct 7, appealed his conviction for theft by a public servant, an offense involving over $20,000 but less than $100,000. The jury assessed punishment at five years confinement and a $1 fine. Wooten raised multiple issues on appeal, including challenges to Batson rulings, allegations of jury misconduct, limitations on final argument time, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas reviewed the claims, finding no clear error in the Batson challenges or the trial court's handling of jury misconduct and argument time. The court also concluded that the evidence, including corroboration of accomplice testimony, was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Theft by Public ServantBatson ChallengeJury MisconductClosing Argument LimitsLegal SufficiencyAccomplice TestimonyTexas Court of AppealsCriminal ConvictionHarris CountyEqual Protection
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Duncan

This opinion addresses an appeal by an unnamed defendant convicted of manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon, challenging the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude two Black prospective jurors under Batson v. Kentucky. The court examines whether the prosecutor's explanations for these exclusions were race-neutral and non-pretextual. While the trial court's finding regarding the exclusion of the first juror (due to tardiness and perceived 'feisty' demeanor) is affirmed, the appellate court determines that the prosecutor's explanation for excluding the second Black woman, based on a stereotype of her employment as a monitor technician, was insufficient and not related to the specific case, thereby failing to rebut the inference of purposeful racial discrimination. The opinion also discusses the preservation of the Batson issue for appellate review and finds no merit in other contentions regarding justification instruction or repugnant verdict.

Batson challengeperemptory challengesracial discriminationjury selectionequal protectioncriminal procedureappellate reviewpreservation of errormanslaughter convictioncriminal possession of a weapon
References
26
Case No. 01-15-00279-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2016

Joseph Juan Facundo v. State

Joseph Juan Facundo was convicted of capital murder for the December 20, 2011, home invasion, robbery, and murder of Russell Lopez. Lopez was found dead with severe injuries, and his house ransacked. Facundo, along with Amber Thornton and Tony Escobar, planned to rob Lopez for money and drugs. During the home invasion, Facundo struck Lopez multiple times with a hammer and later used a sword. Facundo was apprehended while attempting to cross into Mexico. On appeal, Facundo challenged the admission of recorded jailhouse phone calls, argued Batson violations regarding peremptory strikes against Hispanic venire members, and contested the admission of a narrative portion of an EMS report. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in admitting the phone calls or denying the Batson challenges, and deeming the EMS report admission harmless error.

Capital MurderHome InvasionRobberyFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentDue ProcessBatson ChallengePeremptory StrikesHearsay RuleBusiness Records Exception
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 5,246 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