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. No. 08-07-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2008

Darrell W. Garza/Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp./Darrell W. Garza

Darrell W. Garza, an employee of Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., was terminated for violating a safety rule, prompting him to pursue an employment arbitration. The arbitrator found no good cause for termination, mandating a 30-day unpaid leave and reinstatement, but did not mention back pay. Garza subsequently moved to confirm the award in trial court, seeking back wages, while Phelps Dodge cross-appealed against any back pay award. The trial court initially awarded Garza back pay with an offset for interim earnings, which both parties challenged on appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court's back pay award, concluding that the trial court lacked authority to add terms not explicitly stated in the arbitrator's original, ambiguous award, thereby rendering judgment to confirm the arbitration award as originally written.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeBack PayOffsetFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewJudicial AuthorityArbitrator's AwardReinstatement
References
17
Case No. M2012-00801-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

George Ridenour v. Darrell Carman

The plaintiff, an employee, sustained serious injuries while assisting his managing broker to move cattle panels on the broker's personal farm. The plaintiff settled a workers' compensation claim against his employer and its insurer, signing a release that covered the company and its employees. Concurrently, he filed a common law tort action against the managing broker, Darrell Carman, and the broker's son, Chad Carman, alleging negligence. The trial court dismissed the tort claims based on statutory immunity and the release. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims against Darrell Carman, finding him protected by the workers' compensation release as an employee. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Chad Carman, determining that he was not an employee or agent of the employer at the time of the injury and thus was not covered by the release or the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The claims against Chad Carman were reinstated and remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTort LawRelease AgreementStatutory ImmunityCo-employee LiabilityThird Party ActionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceGross Negligence
References
19
Case No. 03-02-00322-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2003

Darrell Koehn and Joanne Koehn v. CST Drilling Fluids, Inc. Individually and D/B/A Starvin Marvin

Darrell and Joanne Koehn appealed a take-nothing judgment from the District Court of Lee County after a jury found Darrell Koehn's own negligence was the proximate cause of his drilling rig accident injuries. The Koehns had sued CST Drilling Fluids, Inc., alleging negligent operation of heavy equipment. On appeal, they challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's failure to find CST negligent and the finding of Mr. Koehn's negligence. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and an expert's opinion that Mr. Koehn was in an unsafe position. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

NegligencePersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumDrilling Rig AccidentJury VerdictFactual SufficiencyProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWitness CredibilityAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 01-09-00267-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2010

Darrell Jones v. State

Darrell Jones was convicted of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment after a jury trial and subsequent change of election to trial court sentencing following evidence of prior convictions. On appeal to the First District of Texas Court of Appeals, Jones raised five issues, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing the trial court erred by not instructing on lesser-included offenses (burglary of a building and theft), disputing the voluntariness of his plea to enhancement paragraphs, and claiming inadequate sentencing admonishments. The Court of Appeals upheld its jurisdiction and, after reviewing each issue, found no merit in Jones's contentions. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Burglary of HabitationSufficiency of EvidenceIneffective Assistance of CounselLesser-Included OffenseVoluntary PleaSentencing AdmonishmentsCriminal AppealTexas LawPrior ConvictionsHabitual Offender
References
37
Case No. M2004-01610-CCA-RM-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2004

Anthony Darrell Hines v. State of Tennessee

The case concerns Anthony Darrell Hines, convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to death, appealing the denial of post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration of a previous conclusion regarding an aggravating circumstance. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel regarding investigation, mitigation proof, jury selection, or constitutional arguments. The court also addressed arguments concerning the constitutionality and retroactive application of Apprendi and Ring, affirming previous rulings and finding them inapplicable.

Criminal LawCapital PunishmentPost-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselAggravating CircumstancesMitigating EvidenceJury VenireDue ProcessFelony MurderStrickland Standard
References
114
Case No. M2017-02381-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Darrell Partin and Chanda Partin

Darrell and Chanda Partin were indicted for theft. The trial court declared a mistrial and dismissed the charges with prejudice due to the State's failure to produce exculpatory documents, violating Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and Brady v. Maryland. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges. The appellate court concluded that the prejudice stemming from a loss of the element of surprise on cross-examination during a retrial was not sufficient to warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Criminal ProcedureDiscovery ViolationRule 16Brady ViolationDismissal with PrejudiceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial NegligenceExculpatory EvidenceMistrial
References
31
Case No. 01-21-00439-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2023

Darrell Anthony Adell, Jr. v. the State of Texas

Darrell Anthony Adell, Jr. was convicted of murder for the death of Trish Rodriguez, the mother of his child, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The victim was found in her bathtub with severe blunt force head injuries, and the scene appeared to be staged to resemble an accidental death. Evidence presented indicated Adell had a financial motive, exacerbated by the victim's recent motion to increase child support payments, and a history of controlling and emotionally abusive behavior. Adell's inconsistent statements, suspicious actions on the day of the murder, and discovery of related artwork on his new phone further implicated him. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.

MurderBlunt Force TraumaDomestic ViolenceChild Support DisputeFinancial MotiveCircumstantial EvidenceStaged Crime SceneInconsistent StatementsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
144
Case No. 01-16-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Harry C. Crawford, III, Darrell Garrett and Theophilus Operating Company, L.L.C. v. Nguyen & Chen, LLP

The case involves an appeal by Harry C. Crawford III, Darrell Garrett, and Theophilus Operating Company LLC (collectively, the Theophilus defendants) against their former law firm, Nguyen & Chen LLP (N&C). N&C had successfully sued the Theophilus defendants for unpaid legal fees in a breach-of-contract claim and was awarded actual damages and attorney's fees. Separately, the trial court imposed a sanction of $1,200 on Crawford and Theophilus for an improperly filed pro se answer. The appellate court affirmed the judgment regarding the unpaid fees and attorney's fees but reversed and vacated the sanction award, citing the trial court's lack of authority and failure to provide due process or make necessary factual findings for imposing sanctions under its inherent powers or procedural rules.

Attorney's FeesSanctionsBreach of ContractExpert TestimonyDisclosure RequirementsPro Se RepresentationAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInherent PowersTexas Civil Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Wright v. Linebarger Googan Blair & Sampson, LLP

Plaintiff Darrell L. Wright, Sr., initially as administrator of the Estate of Lenora S. Wright, filed a class action against Defendant Linebarger Googan Blair & Sampson, LLP, alleging the firm charged unlawfully high attorney's fees for collecting delinquent property taxes in Memphis. The defendant filed several motions, including to stay the case, to dismiss various claims, and to dismiss for lack of standing. The court denied the defendant's supplemental motion to dismiss, motion to stay, and motion to dismiss for lack of standing. It granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing the plaintiff's claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and for negligence, but allowing claims for unjust enrichment and conversion to proceed. Additionally, the court granted a motion to substitute several individuals, including Darrell L. Wright, Sr., as party plaintiffs, finding the initial filing was an understandable mistake.

Class ActionAttorney's FeesDelinquent Property TaxesUnjust EnrichmentConversionTennessee LawFederal JurisdictionTax Injunction ActRule 19 JoinderRule 17 Substitution
References
13
Case No. ADJ1889994
Regular
Oct 28, 2010

DARRELL FULLINGTON vs. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision because the applicant's case has been settled. The Board rescinded the prior findings and award and returned the matter to the trial level. This allows the judge to approve the settlement, or if not approved, the original decision can be reinstated and reconsidered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded DecisionTrial Level ProceedingsFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative JudgeSettlement ApprovalFurther ProceedingsPetition for ReconsiderationDefendant's Letter
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 55 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