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. Carter

The defendant, a general manager at Comfort Inn in Jamestown, was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree for stealing money from the motel's cash receipts. The defendant appealed, arguing that a moral certainty instruction for circumstantial evidence should have been given. The court disagreed, citing direct evidence from a co-worker who witnessed the defendant taking money and the defendant's own admission of taking funds for rent. Additionally, there was direct evidence that the defendant entered erroneous check amounts in the motel's ledger. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the trial court's decision not to issue a circumstantial evidence charge with the 'moral certainty' standard, as the evidence presented was both direct and circumstantial.

Grand LarcenyCircumstantial EvidenceDirect EvidenceMoral Certainty InstructionAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceTheftEmployee MisconductTrial Court Error
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salinas v. State

The defendant, Minnie Safi-nas, appealed her murder conviction and fifty-year sentence for the killing of Velia Guevara. She challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, improper identification methods, suppression of alibi evidence, and constitutional violations in sentencing. The court found sufficient evidence, including circumstantial evidence linking Safi-nas to the murder through her affair with the victim's husband, suspicious car rentals, and altered medical records. The court also rejected claims of impermissibly suggestive identification procedures and affirmed the admission of alibi evidence, noting the defendant waived objections regarding the jury's visit to a cathedral. Ultimately, all issues on appeal were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Murder convictionSufficiency of evidenceCircumstantial evidenceIdentification proceduresAlibi evidenceSentencing violationsJury conductAppellate reviewCriminal lawDue process
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Canzoneri v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff, Robert Canzoneri, had alleged personal injuries from falling on debris. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the plaintiff's inability to precisely identify the defect warranted dismissal. However, the appellate court clarified that circumstantial evidence can establish negligence and causation even without exact testimony on how an accident occurred. The court found that Canzoneri's testimony, supported by a workers' compensation claim form, incident reports, and a coworker's testimony about debris, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Supreme Court to address other issues that had not been resolved.

Personal InjurySummary Judgment ReversalCircumstantial EvidenceNegligenceCausationWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemandVacated Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Middleman

This opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment favoring appellee Dorothy Middleman, which set aside a worker's compensation settlement. The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment on various grounds, including the admission of evidence and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's findings that Joseph Middleman sustained an employment-related injury causing his death. The court affirmed the judgment, finding ample direct and circumstantial evidence corroborated the injury and its relation to Middleman's death. It also found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on evidence admissibility, jury instructions, or motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Worker's CompensationHearsayRes GestaeCircumstantial EvidenceSufficiency of EvidencePoints of ErrorJury VerdictDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictHematoma
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
Case No. 03-18-00185-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2019

Charles Edward Smith v. State

Appellant Charles Edward Smith was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement as a habitual offender. On appeal, Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, and the alleged lack of proper notice for habitual offender sentencing. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, noting that circumstantial evidence, motive, and opportunity linked Smith to the crime. The court also determined that Smith failed to preserve his complaints regarding the prior bad acts and the habitual offender sentencing for appellate review. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with a modification to correct a clerical error in the 'Statute for Offense' designation.

Burglary of HabitationHabitual Offender SentencingSufficiency of EvidencePrior Bad Acts EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCriminal Due ProcessTexas Criminal LawEvidentiary ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceFelony Conviction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Page v. Fulton

This case concerns a wrongful death suit where James Fulton, Dorothy Fulton, and Diane Daigle (as next friend of Monica Page) sued Steven Allen Page for the death of his wife, Kathy Page. A jury found Steven Page killed Kathy Page and awarded damages to her parents and minor child. Steven Page appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict and the excessiveness of the damages. The appellate court examined the circumstantial evidence of Steven Page's motive, opportunity, and suspicious behavior following Kathy's death, as well as the evidence supporting the damages awarded. Finding the evidence sufficient on all points, the court affirmed the jury's judgment.

Wrongful DeathCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictDamages AwardMental AnguishSpousal MurderEvidence Tampering
References
11
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,074 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