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. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. PD-1500-15
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

Wright, Laci Rena

This document is the State of Texas's petition for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals, challenging the Eleventh Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Laci Rena Wright's convictions. Wright was convicted of two counts of injury to a child by omission for failing to provide medical care to her four-year-old daughter, B.R., after B.R. was sexually assaulted by Wright's boyfriend. The State argues that the Court of Appeals misapplied the legal sufficiency standard and that ample evidence supported the jury's finding that Wright recklessly caused serious mental impairment or injury to B.R. by consciously disregarding the risk of her inaction. The petition requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling and reinstate Wright's conviction for recklessly causing serious mental injury.

Child InjuryChild OmissionSexual AssaultRecklessnessMental ImpairmentLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewCausationMedical NeglectPTSD
References
29
Case No. PD-0758-15
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Morgan, Dewan

Regina Raglin invited her boyfriend, Dewan Morgan (Appellee), to live with her. She paid rent, and he contributed to household expenses. They had an argument, and fearing Appellee, Regina invited a male friend over. Upon Appellee's return, he saw the friend, and Regina locked a deadbolt, making his key useless. Appellee pounded on the door, rang the doorbell, yelled, shattered a kitchen window, and ultimately kicked down the door. He then assaulted Regina. A jury convicted Appellee of burglary of a habitation, and he was sentenced to 12 years. The Second Court of Appeals reversed the burglary conviction, affirmed a lesser included assault, and remanded for new punishment proceedings. The State now petitions for discretionary review, arguing that trial and appellate courts should primarily use the Penal Code's definition of 'owner' rather than property law principles. The State also seeks clarification on how much time must elapse after a victim revokes consent for a live-in partner's entry for it to be considered a burglary.

Burglary of HabitationProperty LawPenal CodeConsent to EnterCo-tenancyDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceLesser-Included OffenseTexas Criminal Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borgen v. State

The appellant, Borgen, was convicted of sexual abuse, a conviction that the Houston Court of Appeals subsequently reversed due to unobjected-to improper prosecutorial jury argument during the guilt phase of the trial. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending that the appellant waived any impropriety by failing to object at trial. This court considered whether the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial that it constituted reversible error despite the lack of objection or if due process was violated. The court concluded that while the argument was improper, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal without an objection, distinguishing it from cases where an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other grounds of error.

Prosecutorial MisconductJury ArgumentWaiver of ErrorDue ProcessSexual AbuseCriminal LawAppellate ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsHarmful Error
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. State

Appellant pleaded guilty to drug delivery and was sentenced to ten years' incarceration. On direct appeal, appellant alleged errors in probation law information during the trial and jury charge, which were unobjected to, leading to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This court granted discretionary review, finding significant errors in the jury charge regarding probation conditions, specifically omissions of possible conditions and an incorrect limitation on the judge's discretion. These errors were exacerbated by conflicting testimony from the Chief Probation Officer and misleading arguments by both attorneys. Given the appellant's strong candidacy for probation, the erroneous information in the jury charge and during trial denied him a fair trial. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Probation ConditionsJury Charge ErrorsIneffective Assistance of CounselDiscretionary ReviewCriminal ProcedureFair TrialSentencingDrug OffenseTexas Criminal LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. PUC Docket No. 34298
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission

Justice Jan P. Patterson writes a concurring and dissenting opinion regarding the majority's decision to affirm the district court's granting of pleas to the jurisdiction in a case involving the Public Utility Commission and AEP Texas Central Company. The dissent argues that the Coastal Habitat Alliance, despite being a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), citing Mega Child Care. Justice Patterson asserts that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) does not prohibit such non-party review and that the Alliance has exhausted its administrative remedies. The opinion concurs with the majority on the proper dismissal of claims brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and constitutional due process grounds but disputes the majority's stance on mandamus review for the Commission's discretionary denial of intervention. The dissent would reverse the district court's order in part and remand for further proceedings.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionPublic Utility CommissionNon-Party InterventionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessWrit of MandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
36
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. 01-08-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Expo Motorcars, LLC. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Harris County Appraisal Review Board

Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and Harris County Appraisal Review Board. Expo contested the constitutionality and application of Texas Tax Code sections 23.121(b) and 41.44(a)(1) regarding the valuation of its motor vehicle inventory for tax years 2004 and 2005. Expo argued it was denied meaningful due process review, presented uncontradicted evidence of actual value, and claimed the statutory formula violated the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Expo's protest was untimely for 2004, the valuation method correctly used previous year's sales, and the tax code sections were constitutional as applied to Expo.

property taxmotor vehicle inventoryappraisaldue processTexas Tax Codeconstitutional challengesummary judgmenttax valuationstatutory interpretationappeal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,048 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