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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero

The Texas Supreme Court overruled its long-standing precedent that prohibited the admissibility of seat belt evidence in car accident cases. This decision, based on changes from contributory negligence to proportionate responsibility and modern societal norms regarding seat belt use, allows relevant evidence of seat belt use or non-use to be considered for apportioning responsibility for injuries, even if it did not cause the accident itself. The Court emphasized that the proportionate responsibility statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.003(a), 33.011(4)) requires fact-finders to consider all conduct contributing to harm, including a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing actions. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this new opinion, particularly regarding the exclusion of expert testimony on injury causation. This landmark decision aligns Texas tort law with a common-sense approach to personal injury liability.

seat belt defensecomparative faultproportionate responsibilitytort lawevidence admissibilityinjury causationnegligencecivil procedurejudicial precedentstatutory interpretation
References
31
Case No. I-CR-180523
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

State of Tennessee v. Terry James Lee

The defendant, Terry James Lee, appealed his convictions from the Williamson County Circuit Court for aggravated kidnapping, simple possession, violating the financial responsibility law, speeding, and improper use of a vehicle registration. He challenged the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the admission of evidence of uncharged conduct (rape), and the admission of his pretrial statements to the police, raising issues of territorial jurisdiction and venue. The Court detailed the victim's testimony, which described being kidnapped in Georgia, physically assaulted, and raped during an enforced journey to Tennessee, contradicting the defendant's claims of a consensual trip. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and that territorial jurisdiction properly attached in Williamson County due to the continuing nature of the kidnapping offense. The Court found no reversible error regarding the admission of evidence or the defendant's pretrial statements.

Aggravated KidnappingSimple PossessionFinancial Responsibility Law ViolationSpeeding ConvictionImproper Vehicle RegistrationSufficiency of Evidence ChallengeUncharged Rape EvidencePretrial Statement AdmissibilityTerritorial Jurisdiction DisputeContinuing Offense
References
22
Case No. M2012-02263-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Ronald W. Damon

Ronald W. Damon was convicted in Rutherford County Circuit Court of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective seventy-three years. On appeal, Damon raised multiple issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal or a new trial, alleged errors in trial procedure (like an eight-day break), exclusion of 9-1-1 operator testimony, admission of an incriminating letter, admission of prior bad acts evidence, playing portions of his pretrial video statement, limitations on cross-examination, and various sentencing errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, there were no reversible errors in trial procedure or evidence admission, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.

KidnappingRobberyBurglaryConspiracySufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ReviewConsecutive SentencesDangerous OffenderAlibi DefenseHearsay Exception
References
47
Case No. 01-15-00680-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

ESP Resources, Inc., F/K/A Pantera Petroleum, Inc. v. BWC Management, Inc.

BWC Management, Inc. successfully sued ESP Resources, Inc. for unpaid amounts on three promissory notes. The jury sided with BWC Management, leading to a judgment by the trial court. On appeal, ESP Resources challenged the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, and the legal and factual sufficiency of the verdict. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error, ruling that while some evidence admission was harmless, other evidence was properly admitted, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not preserved for review. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

Promissory NotesContract DisputeHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionEvidence AdmissibilityLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewCorporate FinanceSecurities and Exchange Commission
References
16
Case No. M2016-01980-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

State of Tennessee v. Timothy A. Crowell

Timothy A. Crowell appealed his conviction for aggravated robbery and an eighteen-year sentence from Davidson County Criminal Court. His appeal contended errors by the trial court regarding the admission of partial surveillance video, hearsay evidence, and a photograph lineup during jury deliberations, as well as questioning the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the evidence's admission or its sufficiency, and upholding the trial court's sentencing discretion. The court determined the state had no duty to acquire a complete surveillance video and that any hearsay admission was harmless. Additionally, the positive identification by the victim and the application of various enhancement factors justified the conviction and sentence.

Aggravated RobberyEyewitness IdentificationSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceSurveillance VideoDue ProcessSentencing ReviewEnhancement FactorsCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 11-15-00318-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Christopher Steven Painter v. State

Christopher Steven Painter appealed his sexual assault conviction, for which he was sentenced to ten years confinement. He raised five issues, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove force or lack of consent, the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(b)(4), the admission of a SANE nurse's testimony, and the admission of the victim's mother's testimony. Painter also alleged a Brady violation due to withheld evidence. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed each issue, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the challenged statute was constitutional, and the evidentiary admissions were not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Brady claim was waived. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Sexual AssaultCriminal ConvictionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawHearsay EvidenceLay Opinion TestimonyBrady ViolationEvidence Sufficiency
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Granite State Insurance Co.

Eddie Jackson, the plaintiff in a workers' compensation case, appealed a take-nothing verdict concerning the extent of his disability. The trial court admitted evidence of Jackson's sole medical witness's felony conviction for dispensing non-narcotic drugs, which was used for impeachment. The court of appeals initially affirmed, reasoning that although the conviction was inadmissible under prior law, the error was harmless as new rules of evidence (Tex.R.Evid. 609(a)) would make it admissible on retrial. However, Jackson argued that under Tex.R.Evid. 609(c), evidence of the conviction was inadmissible due to the witness's successful completion of probation. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts, agreeing with Jackson that Rule 609(c) clearly prohibits the admission of such evidence and that the error was not harmless, thus remanding the cause for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationEvidence AdmissibilityFelony ConvictionWitness ImpeachmentRules of EvidenceProbation CompletionAppellate ReviewReversalRemandMedical Witness
References
2
Case No. 03-05-00810-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Anthony L. Martin, A/K/A Anthoney Levane Martin v. State

Anthony L. Martin challenges the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting a trial court's judgment finding him jointly and severally liable for expenses and administrative fees incurred by the State of Texas in cleaning up an abandoned salt water disposal facility. Martin was held liable as an officer of the defunct Texas corporation, Pathfinder Capital, L.C., which was responsible for the cleanup. Martin argues that he was not an officer at the time the State incurred expenses and that documentary evidence of cleanup costs should have been excluded because it consisted of summaries offered without complying with the requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence 1006. The State responds with controverting evidence of his officer status, citing exhibits signed by Martin, and argues the damage evidence was admissible as public records under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8). The court overrules Martin's points of error, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the implicit finding that Martin was a Pathfinder officer and that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the cleanup cost documents as public records. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TexasAppeals CourtCorporate Officer LiabilityEnvironmental CleanupTax Code ViolationEvidence AdmissibilityPublic RecordsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyForfeited Corporate Privileges
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 15,485 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