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

Butler v. State

Judge Miller's concurring opinion addresses the statutory interpretation of juror excuses in Texas, specifically concerning economic reasons. The opinion highlights a conflict between Section 62.110 of the Texas Government Code, which generally prohibits economic excuses without party approval, and Article 35.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks such a prohibition for criminal trials. Judge Miller argues that Article 35.03, as the more particularized code, should govern criminal proceedings regarding jury selection and excuses, emphasizing that the legislature's intent was not to extend the economic excuse prohibition to criminal trials. The opinion critiques prior caselaw that applied Section 62.110 in criminal settings, asserting that Article 35.03 alone controls the issue at bar.

Judicial ExcuseJuror SelectionEconomic ReasonsTexas Government CodeCode of Criminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationConflict of LawsLegislative IntentCriminal TrialsJury Duty
References
9
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2015

Evans, Ralph Kenneth

This document contains two criminal complaints filed by Ralph-Kenneth Evans. He alleges violations of his constitutional rights and various federal and state codes by officials in Grand Saline and Van Zandt County, Texas. Evans claims unlawful arrest for driving without a license, fraud, extortion, and deprivation of liberty, asserting that the legal system is operating unconstitutionally. The complaints also include a "Surrender of Social Security Card and Number" and a "Release of Power of Appointment," challenging government agencies' jurisdiction over him as a private state citizen. He references numerous legal codes and case precedents to support his claims of sovereign status and demands cessation of alleged trespasses.

Criminal ComplaintConstitutional RightsDue ProcessRight to TravelHabeas CorpusTaxationSocial SecuritySovereign CitizenJurisdictionFraud
References
10
Case No. 02-20-00161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2020

in Re Caprice Garcia

This case involves Caprice Garcia, a criminal defense attorney, seeking mandamus relief against an order to pay $3,600 in attorney's fees to Tyler Melton and Proclaim Roofing, LLC. The fee award was related to a trial subpoena duces tecum issued in a criminal case, which the trial court deemed an abuse of process due to short notice. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked statutory authority under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Article 39.14(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue the order. Furthermore, even if inherent authority existed, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings of bad faith and significant interference with core functions. As Garcia, a non-party to the criminal case, had no adequate remedy by appeal, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its order.

Mandamus reliefAttorney's feesSubpoena duces tecumAbuse of discoveryCriminal procedureNon-party sanctionsTrial court authorityInherent powersStatutory constructionTexas appellate courts
References
28
Case No. W2015-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Carolyn Tillilie

This case involves Carolyn Tillilie's appeal of a Fayette County Circuit Court order mandating a $27,000 security bond for the care of three horses, following cruelty charges. The core legal question revolves around appellate subject matter jurisdiction: whether the bond and abandonment provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-210(g)(2) constitute a civil matter or part of criminal procedure. The Court of Appeals, having been transferred the case back from the Court of Criminal Appeals, determined that these provisions are integral to criminal procedure, not a distinct civil forfeiture. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Animal CrueltyHorse WelfareSecurity BondForfeiture LawAppellate JurisdictionCriminal ProcedureCivil ProcedureDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationAbandonment of Property
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rylander v. Caldwell

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit against the Comptroller, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries. Caldwell alleged that the varying collection of these costs across counties violated her rights under the due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and other jurisdictional arguments, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Caldwell's suit, seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against the Comptroller's actions, fell within an exception to sovereign immunity and presented a justiciable controversy. The court also clarified that Caldwell was not limited to remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.

Constitutional LawSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefTexas Government CodeCourt CostsStatutory InterpretationDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
14
Case No. 03-00-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas v. Marcie Caldwell Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries in participating statutory county courts. Caldwell alleged this varying cost violated due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Rylander, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied the Comptroller's plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Caldwell's suit was not barred by sovereign immunity as it challenged a state official's actions under an allegedly unconstitutional law, and that exclusive remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure were inapplicable. The court also found a justiciable controversy existed, as the Comptroller enforces the challenged statute.

Sovereign ImmunityJurisdictionConstitutional LawGovernment CodeCourt CostsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefClass ActionDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The case involves Brian Edward Simons, an incarcerated individual who sued TDCJ for injuries. The central legal question is whether TDCJ received "actual notice" of Simons's claim, a requirement under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court considered the recent amendment to Government Code section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites to suit jurisdictional, and applied it retroactively. Analyzing the "subjective awareness" standard for actual notice, the court found that TDCJ's internal investigation, which concluded Simons was at fault, and communications from Simons's legal assistant, did not demonstrate TDCJ had subjective awareness that its own fault contributed to Simons's injury. Consequently, the court held that TDCJ lacked actual notice, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed Simons's claim for want of jurisdiction.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticeSubjective AwarenessGovernmental Unit ImmunityJurisdictional PrerequisitesRetroactive Application of StatuteProcedural LawSummary Judgment MotionPlea to Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 09-06-039 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2006

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Brian Edward Simons

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a case brought by Brian Edward Simons for injuries sustained during incarceration. The central legal question involved whether TDCJ had "actual notice" of Simons's claim, specifically subjective awareness of its fault, under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The majority opinion retroactively applied a 2005 amendment to the Government Code, Section 311.034, which makes statutory prerequisites jurisdictional. The court concluded that TDCJ did not have actual notice and reversed the trial court's order, dismissing Simons's claim for lack of jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion challenged the retroactive application of the statute and argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding actual notice.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticePlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationJurisdictional RequirementsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. No. 07-87-0137-CR
Regular Panel Decision

Grimes v. State

Judge Baird dissents from the majority's decision regarding the retroactive application of Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 44.29(b). He argues that the Texas Constitution's Article I, Section 16, which prohibits 'retroactive law,' is broader than the federal ex post facto clause and applies to criminal cases, not just civil matters. Baird contends that the retroactive application of Article 44.29(b) unconstitutionally deprives the appellant of a vested right to a new trial for errors in the punishment phase, a right the appellant likely relied upon for trial strategy. He also disputes the majority's assertion that the retroactive law prohibition does not apply to statutes merely affecting procedural matters, arguing that a procedural label does not immunize a law from scrutiny if it affects substantial rights. Furthermore, Baird states that Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 311.022 mandates prospective operation unless a statute is expressly made retrospective, which is not the case for Article 44.29(b).

Ex post factoRetroactive lawTexas Constitution Article I Section 16Criminal procedurePunishment phaseVested rightsTrial strategyStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewJudicial dissent
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 9,086 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