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. 13-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2015

John C. Dempsey A/K/A Jack Dempsey and 401 Gold Consultants v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. D/B/A United States Rare Coin & Bullion Reserve

U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. sued John C. Dempsey for an injunction and money judgment based on a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied Dempsey’s motion to stay arbitration and, after an arbitration award of $1,650,000.00 was entered, confirmed the award despite Dempsey's objections. This appeal argues that the arbitration provision did not cover the specific dispute regarding a breach of contract and liquidated damages, and that USMR waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process for over three years.

Arbitration AgreementNon-Compete ClauseBreach of ContractWaiver of ArbitrationJudicial ProcessAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment MotionInjunctive ReliefLiquidated DamagesTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 06-06-00121-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2007

Ex Parte: Earnest Carl Wilson

Pro se inmate Earnest Carl Wilson appealed the denial of his expunction petition by the 71st Judicial District Court in Harrison County regarding records of his 1993 arrest for escape. Wilson argued that the trial court erred by not holding a full hearing with reasonable notice, not granting him a bench warrant to attend, denying his petition, and denying his motion to vacate. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in ruling on the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, especially when relying on judicial notice of another court's records without proper introduction. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a hearing.

ExpunctionCriminal ProcedureJudicial NoticeEvidentiary HearingAbuse of DiscretionPro Se LitigantInmate RightsBench WarrantAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
22
Case No. 01C01-9706-CC-00215
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

State v. Earnest Travis

The defendant, Earnest Eugene Travis, appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant after a bench trial. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with supervised probation after forty-eight hours in jail, and revoked his driver's license. Travis challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of police officers' opinion testimony regarding his intoxication, and contended that the trial judge improperly considered personal knowledge from a judicial seminar. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction, that the officers' opinion testimony was permissible lay witness testimony, and that the trial judge's general knowledge from a seminar, in context, did not constitute reversible extra-judicial error.

Driving Under InfluenceSufficiency of EvidenceOpinion TestimonyLay WitnessJudicial NoticeExtra-Judicial KnowledgeBench TrialAppellate ReviewField Sobriety TestBreathalyser Test
References
21
Case No. 06-09-00005-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2009

Earnest Dwain Morales v. State

Earnest Dwain Morales was convicted of assault on a public servant after an altercation with Sergeant Paul David Robertson, where Robertson sustained scraped knees and pepper spray exposure. Morales appealed, contending the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of his prior arrests. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the judgment. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Morales recklessly caused bodily injury to Robertson, citing testimony of a physical movement and struggle. Additionally, the appellate court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing evidence of Morales' prior violent offenses to rebut a defense witness's characterization of Morales as a peaceful person.

Criminal LawAssaultPublic ServantEvidentiary SufficiencyPrior Bad ActsCharacter EvidenceRule 403Appellate ReviewTexasBodily Injury
References
32
Case No. 01-21-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2021

Earnest J. Matthews v. Sherell Randall

Appellant Earnest J. Matthews, an inmate, filed a pro se appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing his suit for want of prosecution. The appellant failed to properly file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, as it was not on the correct form and lacked required information. The Court provided instructions for proper filing, but the appellant submitted the same non-compliant form. Additionally, the appellant did not comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code regarding inmate litigation, failing to file an affidavit of prior lawsuits. Furthermore, the appellant prematurely filed a brief that did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, lacking citations to the record, identity of parties and counsel, and an appendix. Consequently, the brief was stricken, and the appellant was ordered to file a corrected brief within thirty days after the reporter’s record is filed.

Pro Se AppealInmate LitigationIn Forma PauperisProcedural Non-ComplianceBrief StrickenAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRule 145Rule 38Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals

Earnest Scott, injured in a forklift accident, sued the manufacturer, Hyster Company, and seller, Stewart & Stevenson, Inc. American International Recovery, Inc., Scott's employer's workers' compensation carrier, intervened. The core dispute revolved around the discoverability of Hyster's accident investigations conducted between April 12 and May 19, 1989, specifically whether they were privileged due to anticipation of litigation. The trial court deemed the investigations discoverable, but the court of appeals reversed this decision, granting mandamus relief to Hyster. The Supreme Court conditionally granted Scott's writ of mandamus, reinstating the trial court's order, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the objective facts did not compel a belief of imminent litigation before May 19, 1989.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeAnticipation of LitigationPrivilegeTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' CompensationForklift AccidentProducts LiabilityTexas Supreme Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Modern Transfer Co. v. Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730

This case concerns an action for a permanent injunction and money damages brought by unnamed plaintiffs, identified as interstate carriers, against unnamed defendants, including a union. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from picketing their premises and misrepresenting a lockout. Defendants, however, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to federal pre-emption. The court found that because plaintiffs are interstate carriers and the dispute involved alleged unfair labor practices without violence, the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, as established by federal statutes (29 U.S.C. §§ 158, 159) and Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Pre-emptionLabor DisputeInjunctionInterstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticesPicketingNational Labor Relations BoardFederal JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 10-07-00369-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Trey Davis and Money of the United States in the Amount of $15,273.25 v. State

Trey Davis appealed the trial court's decision to overrule his motion for a new trial following a default judgment of forfeiture. The State of Texas had sought forfeiture of $15,273.25 in cash, found in Davis's bedroom, under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging it was contraband. Davis failed to file an answer, resulting in the default judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The court found that Davis satisfied all elements, demonstrating his failure to answer was not intentional, he presented a meritorious defense by asserting the money came from insurance claims, and granting a new trial would not prejudice the State. Consequently, the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and reversed the judgment, remanding the case.

Default JudgmentForfeitureMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsAppellate ReviewTexas Criminal ProcedureContrabandMeritorious DefenseCash Forfeiture
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,948 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