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

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. 01C01-9606-CC-00236
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1998

State v. Pat Bondurant (Death Penalty)

Pat Bondurant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and arson. The jury found aggravating factors, including a prior violent felony conviction and that the murder involved torture or depravity of mind, leading to a death sentence. Bondurant appealed, raising numerous issues concerning jury selection, pre-trial publicity, counsel's effectiveness, sufficiency of evidence, marital privilege, prior criminal acts, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and the death sentence, finding no reversible error and concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, and the sentence was not arbitrary or disproportionate.

MurderArsonFirst-degree murderCapital punishmentDeath penaltyPremeditationDeliberationCircumstantial evidenceJury selection irregularitiesIneffective assistance of counsel
References
176
Case No. 13-19-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

in Re Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy, Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc.

Eduardo Munoz Jr. suffered severe personal injuries from an electrical arc from a high voltage power line owned and operated by relators. Plaintiffs alleged negligence and gross negligence against relators. The trial court, presided over by Judge Keno Vasquez, denied relators' motion to recuse the judge and granted death penalty sanctions against relators for discovery abuse and spoliation, striking their pleadings and entering a default judgment on liability. Relators, Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus to set aside these orders. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus regarding recusal but conditionally granted it concerning the death penalty sanctions, finding them excessive.

MandamusDiscovery abuseSanctionsDeath penalty sanctionsRecusalSpoliationElectrical accidentPower lineNegligenceGross negligence
References
133
Case No. 13-17-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Suntide Sandpit, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Mike Hurst, Individually, Phil Hurst, Individually, and Erma Stillwell

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc. (Appellant) sued Suntide Sandpit, Inc., Mike Hurst, Phil Hurst, and Erma Stillwell (Appellees) for contractual damages. H & H was awarded damages against Suntide and Stillwell, but not against Mike and Phil. H & H appealed three issues: the trial court's alleged errors in failing to instruct the jury on the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, spoliation of evidence, and piercing the corporate veil; failure to enforce a discovery order and grant death penalty sanctions; and failure to award contingent appellate attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions, the denial of death penalty sanctions, and declining to award contingent appellate attorney's fees as H & H did not prevail on appeal.

Contractual DamagesConstruction Trust Fund ActSpoliation of EvidencePiercing the Corporate VeilJury InstructionsDiscovery SanctionsMonetary SanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesCommercial LawCorporate Law
References
34
Case No. 13-17-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2017

in Re Nueces Hospitality GP, LLC and Nueces Hospitality, LP

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Nueces Hospitality GP LLC and Nueces Hospitality LP, challenging a trial court's sanction order. The order, issued by Judge Mark H. Woerner in a personal injury suit brought by Myrtle Lee Bryant, prohibited the relators from alleging any affirmative defenses due to repeated failures to timely respond to discovery requests, specifically regarding workers' compensation coverage. Although relators eventually provided the discovery responses, the trial court imposed this severe sanction without explicitly considering lesser penalties or articulating a rationale. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing such a 'death penalty' sanction without evidence of flagrant bad faith or callous disregard for discovery responsibilities. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the trial court to vacate the sanction order.

MandamusSanctionsDiscovery AbuseAffirmative DefensesWorkers' CompensationTexas Civil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTrial Court OrderPrejudice
References
21
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered sanctions imposed by a WCJ against applicant's attorney and representative for failing to disclose a cumulative trauma claim and proceeding to trial without a legal basis. The Board rescinded one sanction for failure to disclose, finding no legal mandate for immediate disclosure, and clarified which parties were sanctioned for proceeding to trial without basis, reducing the penalties. The Board affirmed the award of costs to the defendant for defending against these actions. One Commissioner dissented, believing the conduct was not sanctionable given the evidence presented by applicant's representatives.

WCABSanctionsCostsLabor Code 5813Rule 10561Hearing RepresentativeCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryDue ProcessBill of Particulars
References
1
Case No. 13-22-00389-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

In Re Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

The relators, Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging a trial court's second issuance of "death penalty sanctions" against them. The sanctions stemmed from alleged discovery abuses in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Eduardo Munoz Jr. and his family (real parties) following an electrical arc incident. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's second sanction order contained the same fundamental errors as the first, failing to comply with precedent regarding the severity of sanctions, resting on insufficient evidentiary record, and not demonstrating the inadequacy of lesser sanctions. Specifically, the order improperly precluded the application of proportionate responsibility rules, which constitutes an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its sanction order and proceed with further litigation.

MandamusDeath Penalty SanctionsDiscovery AbuseProportionate ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsTrial Court ErrorCivil ProcedureWrit of MandamusEvidentiary HearingElectrical Arc Incident
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eason v. Eason

Justice Draughn dissents, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by preventing the appellant, a mother, from testifying or presenting witnesses in a child custody proceeding. The justice finds this sanction, imposed for failure to timely respond to discovery requests, to be excessive and unjust, likening it to a "civil death penalty." The opinion details the appellant's difficult circumstances, including a work-related injury and financial hardship, which were exacerbated by a convoluted legal process stemming from her attempt to secure overdue child support. Justice Draughn contends that the harm to the attorney ad litem did not warrant such a severe penalty and that a full and fair hearing was denied. The dissent advocates for less drastic sanctions and emphasizes the importance of allowing a parent to defend herself in custody matters, urging a reversal and remand for a new trial.

SanctionsDiscovery abuseChild custodyDue processRight to testifyAbuse of discretionTrial court errorTexas lawFamily lawAttorney negligence
References
2
Case No. 03-15-00384-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Crystal Bingham Hernandez v. Tiffany Polley

Appellant Crystal Bingham Hernandez filed a lawsuit claiming damages from a motor vehicle collision, asserting a negligent entrustment claim against Appellee Tiffany Polley. The trial court granted Polley's motion to dismiss as a 'death penalty' sanction for alleged discovery abuse, dismissing all of Hernandez's claims against Polley. Hernandez is appealing this dismissal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the severe sanction without first considering lesser sanctions and by failing to specify the exact discovery failures. She contends she made good faith efforts to comply with discovery orders and that her case's merits should not be prejudiced by the sanction.

Discovery SanctionsDeath Penalty SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissNegligent EntrustmentMotor Vehicle CollisionInsurance DisputeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDue Process Violation
References
17
Case No. 13-14-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2014

Maria Del Rosario Cortinas v. Noe Lopez

Maria Del Rosario Cortinas sued Noe Lopez for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. Lopez's insurer, Reinsurance Company of America (RCA), became insolvent, leading to the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) assuming Lopez's defense. The trial court dismissed Cortinas's suit as a death penalty discovery sanction due to her alleged failure to provide certain insurance declarations pages, explanation of benefits (EOB) forms, and a 'Release of Assignment of Lien.' Cortinas appealed, arguing that she exercised due diligence in attempting to comply with discovery orders and that the sanction was overly severe. The Court of Appeals found the sanctions unjust because Cortinas demonstrated good cause for her inability to produce some documents, made diligent efforts to obtain others, and the trial court failed to consider less stringent sanctions before dismissing the case. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle CollisionDiscovery SanctionsTexas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty ActImpaired InsurerMotion to CompelMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionExhaustion of BenefitsHospital Lien
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 4,635 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