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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1977

Claim of Tully v. Interstate Floor Covering Onondaga Supply Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant disability benefits after a one-car accident on November 9, 1975, because he was injured while perpetrating an illegal act (driving while intoxicated). Subsequently, his conviction for driving while intoxicated was vacated, and he pleaded guilty to driving while ability is impaired. The central issue was whether this plea precluded recovery for his injuries. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant's admission of impaired ability, coupled with the unexplained accident, allowed the inference that his impairment caused the accident, thus linking it to an illegal act under Workers’ Compensation Law § 205.

Workers' CompensationDriving while intoxicatedImpaired drivingDisability benefitsIllegal actAccidentPleading guiltyConviction vacatedAffirmationVehicle and Traffic Law
References
2
Case No. No. 03A01-9905-CV-00180
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2001

Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc.

JoAnne Lett sued Collis Foods, Inc. and Waffle House, Inc. after being seriously injured in a collision with an intoxicated employee, Lynda Mills. Mills reported to work at Waffle House already intoxicated and, despite attempts by management to sober her up or arrange a ride, she refused and drove herself home. On her way home, she caused the accident. Lett argued that Collis Foods owed a duty of reasonable care to prevent Mills from driving. The trial court granted summary judgment for Collis Foods, which Lett appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Collis Foods did not owe a duty to Lett under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315, 319, or 324A, as the employer did not contribute to Mills' intoxication, did not force her to drive, and lacked the legal right to restrain her.

Employer LiabilityDuty of CareIntoxicated EmployeeSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party LiabilityOff-Duty EmployeeOff-Premises AccidentRestatement of TortsForeseeability of Harm
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
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. No. 06-03-00204-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

James Glenn Jacobs v. State

James Glenn Jacobs appealed his felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction. He was found intoxicated and unconscious near a wrecked vehicle, which was running and damaged. Jacobs challenged the trial court's admission of medical records as containing double hearsay, arguing the objection was improperly overruled. He also contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove he operated the vehicle. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Jacobs failed to preserve his objection to the medical records due to lack of specificity. Furthermore, his prior guilty plea to driving without insurance, an offense requiring operation of a vehicle, was deemed sufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction.

DWIFelonyCriminal LawTexas Court of AppealsEvidence AdmissibilityHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle OperationIntoxication
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 495 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