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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. 05-19-00728-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Katherine Mitchell v. Dallas Housing Authority

This document is a 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond' filed by an individual named Kyle Fitz. In this statement, Mr. Fitz declares his financial situation to the court, providing details on his monthly income, property value, and monthly expenses. He also addresses whether he is represented by legal aid and if he receives public benefits, stating he does not receive needs-based public benefits and is not represented by legal aid. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate his indigence and inability to cover court-related costs.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyLegal Aid EligibilityIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt DisclosurePublic Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mc Gill

Defendant Gregory Me Gill, indicted for criminal possession of a weapon, moved to suppress a pistol, ammunition, holsters, a briefcase, and statements made to the police. The court held an evidentiary hearing where Police Officer Howard testified he observed Me Gill purchasing a shoulder holster, then approached, frisked, and searched him and his briefcase, finding a loaded pistol. After arrest, Me Gill made statements following Miranda warnings. The court, applying the four-tiered methodology from People v De Bour and People v Hollman, found the officer's actions unjustified by a founded suspicion of criminality, making the intrusion improper. It ruled that any alleged consent to search was invalid due to the unlawful inquiry. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion to suppress both the physical evidence and the statements.

Criminal Possession of WeaponMotion to SuppressFourth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureIndividual LibertyPrivacy RightsTerry StopReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseMiranda Warnings
References
13
Case No. 1253-98, 1254-98
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2000

Davidson v. State

Appellant Jerry Robert Davidson was convicted of indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault, with his conviction initially affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to determine if the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress oral statements that were not electronically recorded, as required by TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. 38.22. The state argued for admissibility under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as the statements were obtained in Montana in compliance with local and federal law. However, the Court reversed, holding that Article 38.22 is a procedural evidentiary rule requiring strict compliance with its electronic recording mandate, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel Texas courts to admit such unrecorded statements, even if admissible in the state where they were obtained.

Criminal ProcedureCustodial InterrogationOral StatementsElectronic RecordingAdmissibility of EvidenceFull Faith and Credit ClauseConflict of LawsPublic PolicySexual AssaultIndecency with a Child
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. 02-19-00206-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Kevin Wayne Powell v. the State of Texas

Kevin Wayne Powell was found guilty of capital murder for the disappearance and presumed death of his fiancée, Kasey Nutter, who vanished in late 2015. Nutter had been in an abusive relationship with Powell, marked by strangulation and threats to dismember her body. Powell's son testified that Powell admitted to killing Nutter because she wouldn't retract an assault statement, and had dismembered and dissolved her body. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence under the corpus delicti rule, the denial of a speedy trial, admission of Kasey's out-of-court statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, and evidentiary rulings on prior bad acts and witness impeachment.

Capital MurderDomestic ViolenceDisappearance CaseCorpus Delicti RuleSpeedy TrialForfeiture by WrongdoingHearsayConfrontation ClauseSuppression of EvidencePawned Goods
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hines v. Miller

The petitioner, convicted of second-degree murder after a guilty plea in New York Supreme Court, sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing due process violations for the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without new counsel or an evidentiary hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition, concluding that there was no constitutional right to an evidentiary hearing under the circumstances and no actual conflict of interest regarding counsel's performance. The court found that the petitioner's allegations of coercion contradicted his prior statements during the plea allocution and that the alleged coercion by counsel amounted to professional advice. A certificate of appealability was granted on the two primary questions.

Habeas CorpusGuilty Plea WithdrawalDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidentiary HearingActual Conflict of InterestRule 32(e)State Court RemediesAEDPA
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neumuller v. State

Loretta Neumuller appealed her conviction for capital murder in Crockett County, Texas, following the death of Larry Albers, a wealthy rancher. The prosecution alleged Neumuller conspired with Tyrone Parker to kill Albers for financial gain after Albers had made Neumuller his sole beneficiary. Neumuller challenged several aspects of her trial, including the denial of a venue change due to community prejudice, the amendment of her indictment, the sufficiency of evidence for "murder for hire," the jury's instruction on "remuneration," and the admissibility of her written and videotaped statements, as well as evidence from a search of her home. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decisions regarding venue, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, or the admission of evidence and statements.

Capital MurderCriminal AppealVenue ChangePretrial PublicityMurder for HireRemunerationIndictment AmendmentEvidentiary SufficiencyJury ChargeSuppression of Evidence
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 2,158 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