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. E1999-02204-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

State v. Treva Dianne Green

The defendant, Treva Dianne Green, appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) in Blount County. She challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the suppression of her statements, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and contended that the jury should have been instructed on reckless driving, also arguing her sentence and fine were excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the DUI conviction and upholding the admissibility of her statements. The court also rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and the lesser-included offense argument, while modifying the sentencing judgment to reflect a 30% confinement percentage for rehabilitative programs but affirming the imposed fine.

Driving Under Influence (DUI)Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSentencing GuidelinesProbationMisdemeanor Conviction
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estupinan v. Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc.

The plaintiff, administratrix of Francisco Estupinan's estate, sued Cleanerama Drive-In Cleaners, Inc. and John Bellasario for damages after Bellasario, a fellow employee, assaulted and killed Estupinan. Cleanerama moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Law, as an award had already been made. The court clarified that the exclusive remedy rule applies unless the employer actively instigated the assault, not merely through respondeat superior. Finding no evidence of Cleanerama's willfulness, the appellate court reversed the order denying dismissal and granted Cleanerama's motion to dismiss the complaint against it.

Employer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAssault in EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorIntentional Tort ExceptionMotion to DismissAppellate Court DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer NegligenceWillful Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Sonic Drive-In of Angleton, Inc.

Majorie Marie Hall, an employee of Sonic Drive-In, sued Sonic and its manager, Michael Cantrell, for premises liability, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hall was injured when she cut her hand on a freezer cover left on the floor. Later, Cantrell allegedly assaulted her by grabbing her wrist to make her hold a french-fry scooper. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sonic and Cantrell on all claims. Hall appealed, arguing that material fact issues existed for her premises liability claim, the assault claim was improperly dismissed based on a faulty interpretation of intent, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not even addressed in the summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Hall raised genuine issues of material fact for premises liability, that an 'intent to injure' is not the only element for assault, and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not properly addressed by the summary judgment motion.

Premises LiabilityAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyForeseeabilityCause-in-FactActual Knowledge
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Z.A.O., Inc. v. Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture

Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture (Yarbrough) sued Z.A.O., Inc. (ZAO) for breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass after ZAO, a former tenant operating a gas station, failed to remove hazardous substances from the leased property in El Paso, Texas upon lease termination. Despite ZAO's efforts and a state commission letter indicating no further corrective action was necessary for ZAO, the trial court found ZAO liable for trespass and nuisance. On appeal, the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lease required ZAO to remove all toxic substances. However, the appellate court reversed the findings of malice, nuisance, and trespass due to insufficient evidence, particularly noting that the state commission's determination of no further action superseded common law trespass claims. Consequently, the awards for past and future rental losses were reversed, but those for repair costs and soil testing were affirmed. Attorney's fees were reversed and remanded for segregation, as recovery is limited to the breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractNuisanceTrespassEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous WasteLease AgreementDamagesAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. E2001-01372-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Gene Blankenship

Jimmy Gene Blankenship appealed convictions for driving under the influence, driving on a revoked license, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and vehicular assault in Rhea County. He challenged the admission of testimony regarding erratic driving in Hamilton County, the results of a blood alcohol test, and expert testimony on alcohol percentages, as well as his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding that the erratic driving testimony provided context, the blood alcohol test was admissible as a medical record, and the expert testimony was not misleading. The appellate court also upheld the sentencing, noting the defendant's history of criminal convictions and non-compliance with past sentences, which rebutted the presumption for alternative sentencing.

Vehicular AssaultDriving Under InfluenceRevoked LicenseReckless EndangermentImplied Consent LawBlood Alcohol Content AdmissibilitySentencing ReviewCharacter Evidence Rule 404(b)Business Records Hearsay ExceptionExpert Testimony Admissibility
References
49
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06925
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2025

People v. Ouderkirk

Defendant appealed her conviction for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, driving while ability impaired by drugs, and driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs, following a guilty plea. She argued that her statements to law enforcement should have been suppressed due to a head injury and that her plea withdrawal motion was wrongly denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the County Court's decision, finding that her statements were voluntary and her plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, despite claims of a mental health crisis and coercive bail modification. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying suppression or the plea withdrawal motion without a hearing.

Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of Motor VehicleDriving While Ability Impaired by DrugsPlea of Guilty WithdrawalSuppression HearingVoluntariness of StatementsMiranda WarningsField Sobriety TestsChemical Drug Test RefusalIneffective Assistance of CounselBrady Violation
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dailing v. State

Appellant Amanda Dailing challenged her conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing that the trial court, Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 8, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. She contended that statutes granting jurisdiction to statutory county courts over misdemeanor DWI cases violated the Texas Constitution or, alternatively, that these courts lacked original jurisdiction. The appellate court unanimously concluded that the Texas Constitution authorized the Legislature to grant such jurisdiction and that the Legislature properly exercised this authority. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction. Additionally, a majority of the panel affirmed the assessment of a $15 court cost related to visual recording after arrest, despite the Chief Justice's dissent on this issue. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Driving While IntoxicatedDWIJurisdictionStatutory County CourtsConstitutional County CourtsCriminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas ConstitutionMisdemeanorAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04297 [230 AD3d 721]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead

The plaintiff, 6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed its complaint against defendant Angeles Portela following a jury verdict. The action stemmed from property damage caused by water and debris flowing onto the plaintiff's property. Earlier stages of the litigation saw several other defendants, including the Town of North Hempstead, granted summary judgment, leaving only a specific claim regarding mulch placement against Portela for trial. The plaintiff alleged Portela's negligent mulch application increased run-off, but the jury found Portela not negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that any other errors were harmless.

Property DamageNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsSummary JudgmentWater Run-offMulch ApplicationHarmless ErrorJudicial Discretion
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 556 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