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. 08-17-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2018

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson Hawa v. Double Eagle Royalty, LP

This case involves an arbitration dispute between two oil companies, Ridge Natural Resources, L.L.C. (appellant) and Double Eagle Royalty, L.P. (appellee), concerning a disputed royalty interest in minerals in Winkler County, Texas. Double Eagle, as successor-in-interest to the original lessors (McDaniels), sued to quiet title, and Ridge moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in a 'Royalty Lease' signed with the McDaniels. The trial court denied Ridge's motion, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the agreement's cap on punitive damages is against public policy and must be severed, but found that Double Eagle failed to provide sufficient evidence to dissolve the arbitration agreement entirely on unconscionability grounds. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration after severing the punitive damages prohibition.

Arbitration AgreementContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilitySubstantive UnconscionabilityProcedural UnconscionabilityExemplary DamagesPublic PolicySeverability ClauseOil and Gas LeaseMineral Royalty Interest
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halikipoulos v. Dillion

The Petitioners filed habeas corpus petitions seeking to bar further prosecution on Double Jeopardy grounds after completing a "Stoplift" program as a bail condition for shoplifting charges. They argued the program, including an $85 fee, constituted punishment prior to conviction. The District Court examined whether jeopardy attached or if it was a Due Process violation. Citing prior Supreme Court cases, the court found that jeopardy does not attach during pre-trial proceedings or bail conditions without the risk of a guilty verdict. Furthermore, the court determined the "Stoplift" program served a rational, non-punitive, remedial purpose and was not an excessive burden, comparing it to other permissible bail conditions. Therefore, the court concluded that the program did not constitute punishment in violation of either the Double Jeopardy or Due Process clauses, and even if it did, dismissal of charges would not be the proper remedy. The petitions were consequently denied.

Double JeopardyDue ProcessHabeas CorpusPre-trial PunishmentBail ConditionsShopliftingRemedial ProgramsFifth AmendmentCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Morel

This case involves a criminal prosecution for contempt of court, based on the defendant allegedly violating a Supreme Court order of protection, running concurrently with a civil child neglect proceeding in Family Court where the defendant also allegedly violated an interim order of protection. The defendant moved to renew and reargue a prior decision dated June 15, 2012, which had denied dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Upon reargument, the court reversed its original ruling, finding that the criminal prosecution is barred by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles. Citing Breed v Jones, the court determined that jeopardy attached when the Family Court began to hear evidence in the combined fact-finding hearing under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, especially since the defendant faced potential punitive consequences, including incarceration, in the civil proceeding. Therefore, since the factual allegations in both the criminal and civil cases are identical in part, and the defendant faces a punitive sanction in Family Court, the criminal contempt proceeding is dismissed.

Criminal ContemptDouble JeopardyFamily Court Act Article 10Orders of ProtectionChild Neglect ProceedingsFederal Constitutional LawMotion to ReargueMotion to RenewPunitive SanctionsCivil vs. Criminal Proceedings
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. W2016-00222-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2016

Christopher Cunningham v. State of Tennessee

The petitioner, Christopher Cunningham, appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and double jeopardy violations for his aggravated robbery convictions. The post-conviction court found counsel provided effective assistance. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court concluded the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from counsel's performance and that the double jeopardy claim was meritless, as Tennessee law considers the number of takings, not victims, for robbery prosecution.

Post-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselDouble JeopardyAggravated RobberyCriminal AppealConsecutive SentencesAlibi WitnessCharacter WitnessWaiver of RightsPlea Bargain
References
20
Case No. 10-07-00160-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2009

Melvin Ray Childress v. State

Melvin Childress was convicted of dating violence assault (enhanced) and aggravated assault after he poured gasoline on his girlfriend, Tamala, and threatened to ignite it. A jury found him guilty, leading to ten and forty-five-year prison sentences. Childress appealed, raising three issues: factual insufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy, and a claim that the 'dating relationship' statute was unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence factually sufficient, no double jeopardy violation, and the 'dating relationship' statute to be constitutional.

Criminal LawDating Violence AssaultAggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyDouble JeopardyConstitutional VaguenessDating Relationship StatuteFelony EnhancementAppellate ReviewCredibility of Witness
References
33
Case No. 03-03-00440-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2006

Celeste Beard Johnson v. State

Celeste Beard Johnson appealed her capital murder and injury to an elderly individual convictions related to the death of her husband, Steven Beard. The jury found Johnson guilty of instigating the shooting of Beard by Tracey Tarlton for financial remuneration. Johnson challenged the sufficiency of accomplice testimony corroboration, the cause of death, double jeopardy, and various trial court rulings on evidence and witness confrontation. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence, no double jeopardy violation under Texas law, and no reversible errors in the trial court's proceedings.

Capital MurderInjury to ElderlyAccomplice TestimonyEvidence SufficiencyRemunerationDouble JeopardyIndictment AmendmentPerjury AdmonishmentCross-Examination LimitsHearsay
References
43
Case No. 04-15-00348-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2015

in Re Sylvia Martinez

Sylvia Martinez, the relator, sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied her pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus, which claimed double jeopardy. The Fourth Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court had a ministerial duty to rule on the habeas application before proceeding to trial. The appellate court determined that where a habeas application is based on a double jeopardy claim, the applicant is entitled to a ruling before trial. Finding the trial court's refusal to rule or consider the merits an error, and given the imminent trial, the court conditionally granted the mandamus in part, directing the trial court to provide a ruling on Martinez's habeas application before trial.

Double JeopardyMandamusHabeas CorpusCriminal ProcedurePre-trial MotionsMinisterial DutyAppellate ReviewTexas LawState Jail FelonyProstitution
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Griswold

Defendant Griswold was convicted of murder in the second degree and arson after a retrial on a felony murder count where the initial jury had been unable to agree. Griswold appealed, contending that the retrial violated double jeopardy and that incriminating statements made to police were admitted in contravention of his right to counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's discretion in declaring a mistrial, thus rejecting the double jeopardy claim. However, applying recent precedents from People v Cunningham and People v Pepper retroactively, the court found that the jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of Griswold's statements was prejudicially incorrect, as it did not require a prior determination of whether he had requested counsel. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Murder in the second degreeFelony murderArsonDouble JeopardyRight to CounselMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRetroactive application of lawNew trial
References
3
Case No. S 90 Cr. 450
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 1992

United States v. Raphael

Defendant Alan Raphael moved to dismiss the second superseding indictment, asserting double jeopardy and improper use of the Grand Jury, and sought discovery and a bill of particulars. The court denied the double jeopardy motion, clarifying that the current trial is a continuation of the prior prosecution, not a separate one. However, the court found the timing of Grand Jury subpoenas served on defense witnesses after indictment and before a third trial attempt to be questionable, suggesting improper trial preparation. Consequently, the Government was ordered to submit Grand Jury transcripts for an in camera inspection to determine if there was an abuse of process. The court also held the Government to a specific date for a stolen vehicle and deferred a discovery request regarding the vehicle.

Double JeopardyGrand Jury MisconductMotion to DismissCriminal ProcedureTrial PreparationSuperseding IndictmentFifth AmendmentPerjury InvestigationObstruction of JusticeIn Camera Inspection
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 223 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