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. ADJ4132514 (SAC 0199422)
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

ERNEST HOLMES vs. THE HUNTINGTON GROUP, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Ernest Holmes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed beyond the statutory 20-day limit plus an additional 5 days for mailing. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelyWCABWCJLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013administrative law judgeFinding of FactConclusion of Lawdismissal
References
0
Case No. 05-22-01083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2023

Russell John Holmes v. Eiland Coffee at Canyon Creek, LLC

Eiland Coffee at Canyon Creek, LLC sued Modern Vintage Customs, LLC and Russell John Holmes for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference. Holmes failed to answer after being served, leading to a no-answer default judgment. Holmes appealed, arguing improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's default judgment, concluding that Holmes was properly served and failed to meet the elements of the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgment. Specifically, Holmes did not demonstrate that his failure to answer was unintentional, did not present a meritorious defense, and did not prove that granting a new trial would not delay or injure Eiland Coffee.

Default JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil ProcedureDue ProcessService of ProcessCraddock TestMotion for New TrialIntentional ConductConscious Indifference
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co.

In this worker's compensation case, Appellant Leslie T. Holmes appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC). Holmes filed suit against TMIC seeking judicial review but failed to exercise due diligence in serving TMIC, leading to an initial dismissal and a lengthy delay even after reinstatement. TMIC raised an affirmative defense of limitations, arguing that Holmes's suit was barred due to lack of diligent service. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Holmes's prolonged and unexplained delays in effecting service constituted a lack of due diligence as a matter of law, despite the timely filing of the original petition.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentDue DiligenceService of ProcessStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas LawTrial Court JudgmentDismissalReinstatement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Holmes v. N. Tex. Health Care Laundry Coop. Ass'n

Christina Holmes, a former customer service representative, sued her employer, North Texas Health Care Laundry Cooperative Association (NTHCL), alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and various state law claims. Holmes claimed that NTHCL's general manager, David Hernandez, subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances. The court granted NTHCL's motion for summary judgment, finding that Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence that the sexual conduct was unwelcome, citing numerous sexually explicit emails initiated by Holmes. Additionally, the court ruled that NTHCL successfully established the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense by demonstrating it had an anti-harassment policy and took prompt corrective action by forcing Hernandez's resignation upon learning of the affair. All of Holmes's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEllerth-Faragher Affirmative DefenseEmployment DiscriminationUnwelcome Sexual AdvancesRetaliation ClaimAbandoned ClaimsEvidentiary Objections
References
49
Case No. 08-10-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2011

Leslie T. Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Leslie T. Holmes appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC) in a worker's compensation case. Holmes contended that he exercised due diligence in serving TMIC, which he argued should have interrupted the statute of limitations. While the appellate court agreed that Holmes's initial suit filing was timely due to a weekend rule, it found an unexplained five-and-a-half-year delay in serving TMIC. This delay constituted a lack of due diligence as a matter of law. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

worker's compensationdue diligencestatute of limitationssummary judgmentservice of processappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurelimitations periodjudgment affirmation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County v. Holmes

Glen Holmes sued Dallas County for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and fraud. The jury found in favor of Holmes on the wrongful termination claim. Dallas County appealed, contending insufficient evidence to support the wrongful termination finding and errors in refusing requested jury instructions and questions. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of wrongful termination and that there was no abuse of discretion in the submission of the jury charge.

wrongful terminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimsufficiency of evidencecausal connectionjury instructionsjob abandonmentgood faith claimTexas Labor Codeappellate review
References
14
Case No. 12-09-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

in the Estate of Ernest H. Warren

Beverly Ann Corey and Stephen Leonard Warren appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Claude Michael Rightmire in their contest of Ernest H. Warren's Last Will and Testament. The appellants argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Ernest's testamentary capacity and Martha Jo Warren's undue influence. The appellate court determined that the trial court improperly granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the issue of testamentary capacity, but properly granted summary judgment on undue influence. The court modified the judgment to reflect a traditional summary judgment on testamentary capacity and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Estate LawWill ContestSummary JudgmentTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceAppellate ReviewProbate LawTexas Court of AppealsEvidentiary RulingsDe Novo Review
References
19
Case No. M2020-01539-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

State of Tennessee v. Toby Michael Holmes

The defendant, Toby Michael Holmes, a sheriff's deputy, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after a jury found him responsible for the death of a passenger during a high-speed pursuit and officer-involved shooting. Holmes had initially been indicted for voluntary manslaughter. The trial court denied his request for judicial diversion, sentencing him to three years of probation and 1,768 hours of community service. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the conviction and the community service requirement, but reversed the denial of judicial diversion, remanding the case for judicial diversion to be granted. The appellate court found the trial court failed to adequately consider all relevant factors in denying diversion.

Criminally Negligent HomicideVoluntary ManslaughterJudicial DiversionProbationCommunity ServiceOfficer-Involved ShootingHigh-Speed ChaseTraffic StopAutopsyForensic Pathology
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co. v. Holmes

This is an appeal in a workmen's compensation case from a District Court judgment in Jefferson County, Texas. The appellant, Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., appealed a judgment for the injured employee, Holmes, regarding the nature and extent of his injury and wage rate. The jury found Holmes suffered a 17.5% partial permanent loss of his right leg's use due to an injury in July 1952 while working for Pure Oil Company. The trial court set his wage rate at $90 per week, leading to a compensation award of $9.45 per week for 200 weeks, less $125 already paid. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, but reformed it to credit the appellant for the $125 already paid to the appellee.

Wage Rate CalculationPartial Permanent DisabilityLeg Injury CompensationInsurance Carrier AppealJudicial Notice of Employment ConditionsStatutory Wage Computation (Article 8309)Evidence SufficiencyMotion for Instructed VerdictCredit for Advance PaymentsAppellate Judgment Reformation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ernest Mungia v. via Metropolitan Transit

Ernest Mungia (Applicant) obtained a default judgment against his former employer, VIA Metropolitan Transit (Defendant). Four years later, VIA filed a bill of review and a claim for declaratory relief to set aside the default judgment, citing improper service. The trial court granted VIA's motion for summary judgment, setting aside the default judgment and awarding attorney's fees to VIA under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). Mungia appealed the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Catherine Stone, reversed the trial court's decision regarding attorney's fees. The court held that the declaratory judgment claim merely duplicated the issues already present in the bill of review, thus serving no purpose other than to obtain otherwise impermissible attorney's fees under the UDJA. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning Mungia's original claims against VIA.

Declaratory Judgment ActAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentBill of ReviewImproper ServicePersonal JurisdictionCollateral AttackAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentTexas Law
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 112 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