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. Patino

The defendant, a police officer, moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and defrauding the government. These charges stemmed from allegations that he falsely claimed permanent disability and improperly collected money from Nassau County. The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, defective Grand Jury proceedings (improper instructions and failure to introduce exculpatory evidence), legally insufficient evidence, and a defective indictment. The court, presided over by Jack Mackston, J., denied the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution by the District Attorney, adequate Grand Jury instructions, and legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied dismissal in the interest of justice but partially granted a motion for disclosure of certain statistics.

Criminal Procedure LawGrand JuryIndictmentSelective ProsecutionVindictive ProsecutionFalse InstrumentGrand LarcenyGovernment FraudPolice Misconduct AllegationsDisability Fraud
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
Case No. 07-09-0343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2011

South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd., and Larry Dale Wisener v. the Kitten Family Living Trust

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract dispute over water well operations on property owned by South Plains Lamesa Railroad, Ltd. (SPLR). The Kitten Family Living Trust (the Trust) had entered into both a Lease Agreement and a subsequent Easement Agreement with SPLR for drilling water wells. A dispute arose regarding the number of wells the Trust was permitted to operate and the duration of its rights, leading to the Trust suing SPLR for interference. The trial court ruled in favor of the Trust, granting a perpetual easement and attorneys' fees. On appeal, SPLR argued that the trial court erred in its jury instructions, specifically claiming that a broad-form question was defective for failing to incorporate legal theories and their elements. The appellate court agreed, finding the instruction improper and confusing, and also noted errors in not submitting instructions on an alleged oral agreement and conversion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial due to these instructional errors.

Contract DisputeLease AgreementEasement AgreementWater RightsJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureReversal and RemandOral ContractConversion ClaimStatute of Frauds
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1982

Nugent v. Utica Cutlery Co.

Jack C. Nugent appealed a take-nothing judgment in a products liability case against Utica Cutlery Company and Mathias Klein & Sons, Inc., concerning an allegedly defective knife. Nugent sustained an eye injury while stripping wires with the knife, contending it had a manufacturing defect or that the appellees failed to warn of its dangers. The jury, however, found no defect and no breach of duty to warn. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling there was no error in the jury instructions or in refusing certain requested special issues, and that the jury's findings were supported by evidence.

Products liabilityDefective productFailure to warnStrict liabilityManufacturing defectMisuse defenseJury instructionAppellate reviewTexas lawTorts
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. 01-06-00759-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2009

WPS, Inc. v. Enervest Operating, LLC

WPS, Inc. appealed a final judgment in favor of EnerVest Operating, L.L.C., concerning a dispute over a compressor package rental and maintenance contract. A fire destroyed the compressor, and EnerVest sued WPS for breach of contract, alleging a defective component. WPS counterclaimed, asserting EnerVest's negligence and breach of insurance obligations. The jury found an internal defect caused the fire, leading to a judgment for EnerVest for damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, addressing various appellate challenges including jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, contractual limitations on liability, and EnerVest's compliance with insurance provisions.

Contract LawBreach of ContractCommercial LeaseWarranty DisputeProduct LiabilityJury InstructionsEvidentiary SufficiencyIndemnityInsurance ContractAttorney's Fees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genie Industries, Inc. v. Ricky Matak, Belinda Matak, and Misty Sonnier as Representative of the Estate of Walter Pete Logan Matak

In this products liability action, the Matak family sued Genie Industries, Inc. after Walter Pete Logan Matak died from injuries sustained in a fall from a Genie AWP-40S aerial work platform. A Jefferson County jury found the product defectively designed and a producing cause of injuries, assigning 55% responsibility to Genie. Genie appealed, challenging the design defect finding and Batson/Edmonson rulings, both of which were upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded on the issue of damages, instructing the trial court to apply a full settlement credit from a prior settlement with Cathedral in the Pines, which the original judgment had failed to include fully.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectAerial Work PlatformForeseeable MisuseRisk-Utility AnalysisSafer Alternative DesignComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditBatson/Edmonson ChallengeJury Verdict
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Caterpillar, Inc.

Reymundo Torres died in a forklift accident in 1989 while unloading a truck. His family (Appellants) sued Caterpillar Industrial, Inc., the forklift manufacturer, and Rymco, Inc., Torres' employer, alleging strict product liability and negligence. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment for Caterpillar on manufacturing and design defect claims, but a failure-to-warn claim proceeded to trial where the jury found in favor of Caterpillar. Rymco was found liable by default. On appeal, the court reversed the partial summary judgment concerning the design defect related to the lack of rollover protective structure, remanding that specific claim for trial. All other appellate points, including instructions on agency and comparative negligence, were affirmed.

Product LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContributory NegligenceComparative CausationForklift AccidentWrongful DeathTexas Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Housing Authority v. Lara

The Corpus Christi Housing Authority appealed the dismissal of its forcible detainer action against tenant Maria Lara. Lara's lease was terminated due to alleged criminal activity, and the housing authority obtained an eviction judgment from a justice court. The county court, however, dismissed the case, finding the housing authority's termination notice defective under federal regulations. On appeal, the housing authority contended the notice was adequate or that Lara had actual knowledge of the lease termination. The appellate court determined that while the notice was indeed defective, such deficiencies were not jurisdictional and the trial court erred by dismissing the action rather than abating it for proper notice. The case was reversed and remanded with instructions to abate the underlying action until sufficient notice is provided.

Forcible DetainerLease TerminationPublic Housing AuthorityFederal RegulationsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandAbatement
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 2,351 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