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. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Vega v. Gasper

This document presents the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from a hearing held on January 18, 1995, in El Paso, Texas, following a remand from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court addressed the compensability of morning and afternoon wait times for seasonal agricultural workers employed by Defendant John W. Gasper. It concluded that both periods of wait time were compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as they primarily benefited Gasper and employees could not effectively use the time for personal purposes. The court also determined that Gasper lacked good faith and reasonable grounds for his failure to compensate the plaintiffs, making him liable for liquidated damages under the FLSA and statutory damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA). Consequently, the court ordered a recomputation of the ultimate award in favor of the plaintiffs.

Agricultural LaborWage DisputesFair Labor Standards ActWorker ProtectionCompensable TimeLiquidated DamagesEmployer ResponsibilityRemand CaseTexas LawNew Mexico Employment
References
5
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castorina v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

Plaintiff, Guiseppe Castorina, a longshoreman, sued Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and general maritime law for asbestosis sustained from asbestos exposure on Lykes vessels between 1965 and 1972. The court addressed issues of laches and the applicability of pre- or post-1972 LHWCA amendments, determining the 'date of injury' for asbestosis cases is the date of manifestation (diagnosis in 1979), making post-1972 law applicable. Under this law, the vessel owner owed a duty of ordinary care and to warn of latent dangers, but Lykes was found not negligent as the dangers of asbestos were not known or reasonably foreseeable to them during the exposure period. The court also rejected the unseaworthiness claim, concluding that the injury stemmed from the inherent nature of the cargo itself, not a defect in the vessel or its appurtenances. Therefore, the court found for the defendant.

AsbestosisLongshoremanMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessLatency PeriodOccupational DiseaseLHWCA AmendmentsDate of InjuryCargo Liability
References
37
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 15-25-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2025

Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University

Appellant Brian Beckcom seeks to abate his appeal and remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. This motion is filed after the trial court's May 12, 2025 order dismissed Beckcom's petition for a writ of mandamus against Texas A&M University. Beckcom argues that the lack of specific findings from the trial court, despite a timely request, hinders his ability to present a proper appeal. The underlying dispute involves Texas A&M's alleged non-compliance with Public Information Act requests related to the Corps of Cadets' freshman experience program and a hazing investigation. Beckcom asserts that without these detailed findings, the legal and factual bases for the dismissal remain unclear, potentially jeopardizing his appellate arguments.

Public Information ActMandamusOpen RecordsTexas A&M UniversityCorps of CadetsHazingStudent ConductDue ProcessFreedom of InformationHigher Education
References
39
Case No. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. ll-O4-O4686-CR-(l)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Beeson, Daryl Lee

Daryl Lee Beeson, proceeding pro se, filed an objection to the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, citing a delay in receiving the lower court's documents. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the complainant's "Multiple Personalities" and for the denial of his motion for continuance. Beeson also claims his counsel inadequately impeached a key state witness. He requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to mandate an evidentiary hearing or secure affidavits from trial counsel to address these critical issues related to his conviction for aggravated sexual assault.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessHabeas CorpusEvidentiary HearingMultiple Personality DisorderWitness ImpeachmentContinuance DenialAggravated Sexual AssaultJury InstructionsConfrontation Clause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,494 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