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

Kroger Texas Ltd. Partnership v. Suberu

Theresa Suberu sued Kroger Texas Limited Partnership and assistant store manager Robert Moody for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress after being falsely accused of shoplifting and acquitted. A jury found in Suberu's favor and awarded actual and exemplary damages. Kroger appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and jury charge errors. The appellate court resolved all issues against Kroger, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on malicious prosecution, mental anguish damages, and malice for punitive damages, and rejected Kroger's complaints regarding evidentiary exclusions and jury charge instructions.

malicious prosecutionintentional infliction of emotional distressshopliftingfalse accusationjury verdictappellate reviewlegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencydamagespunitive damages
References
34
Case No. 01-22-00505-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2024

Xavier Johnson v. the State of Texas

Xavier Johnson appealed his convictions for retaliation and assault on a public servant, stemming from an incident where he assaulted his literacy teacher, Nicole Truelove, at the Ferguson Prison Unit. Truelove alleged Johnson physically assaulted her and made threats after she began writing a disciplinary report against him for violating classroom rules. The jury acquitted Johnson of aggravated sexual assault but convicted him of retaliation and assault on a public servant. On appeal, Johnson challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions and the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding Truelove's financial condition and an audiotape. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings.

Criminal LawRetaliationAssault on Public ServantSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsConfrontation ClauseRule 403 AnalysisWitness CredibilityPrison Inmate
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Management v. Escalante

This workers' compensation case involves Hector Escalante, who sustained injuries in a work-related vehicle accident. After an administrative determination by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) that limited his compensable injuries, Escalante successfully appealed to a district court. A jury found his compensable injury included the lumbar spine and cervical root lesions, and that the accident caused his disability. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed to the appellate court, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding the extent of injuries and disability, and raising several evidentiary errors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, including the admission of Dr. Boone's reports and the exclusion of Dr. Pollet's report.

Workers' CompensationVehicle AccidentLumbar Spine InjuryCervical Root LesionsDisability ClaimExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceEvidentiary ErrorBusiness RecordsPublic Records
References
47
Case No. C14-92-00846-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 1993

Haryanto v. Saeed

Mohammad Saeed sued Soerono Haryanto for false imprisonment, negligence, gross negligence, terroristic threat, assault, reckless conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Haryanto, a wealthy foreign national and V.I.P. hotel guest, detained Saeed at gunpoint, threatened to kill him, and made derogatory remarks based on Saeed's nationality and religion. The jury found for Saeed on all counts, awarding $1,000,000 in actual damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages. Haryanto appealed, challenging voir dire, jury argument, sufficiency of evidence, and evidentiary rulings. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.) affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the arguments or evidentiary rulings, and sufficient evidence to support the damages. A concurring opinion suggested a remittitur for future damages.

False ImprisonmentNegligenceGross NegligenceTerroristic ThreatAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPunitive DamagesActual DamagesVoir DireJury Argument
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dyer v. Cotton

Eddie Dyer sued Ronald Cotton in a trespass to try title suit, claiming adverse possession of a 6/7th interest in farmland in Grimes County, Texas, in addition to a 1/7th interest he acquired by conveyance. A jury found that Dyer had not adversely possessed the property, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Dyer. On appeal, Dyer contended that insufficient evidence supported the jury's finding and that the trial court erred in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings. The court specifically addressed Dyer's claim of adverse possession against co-tenants, requiring proof of ouster or repudiation, and found the evidence factually and legally sufficient to support the jury's decision.

Adverse PossessionCo-TenancyTrespass to Try TitleOusterRepudiationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyParol Evidence Rule
References
59
Case No. 13-01-267-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Facility v. Serafin De Leon

The Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Facility appealed a jury verdict that awarded Serafin de Leon lifetime income benefits (LIBS) due to a 1993 work-related injury resulting in total and permanent loss of both feet. The appellant raised seven issues, challenging the judgment's basis, pleading sufficiency, jury question formulation, and evidentiary sufficiency. De Leon sustained severe foot injuries from a fall, leading to multiple surgeries and chronic pain, rendering him unable to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that de Leon's claim was based on the 'loss of use of both feet' under Texas Labor Code section 408.161(b), and found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict. The court also addressed the appellant's complaint about the judgment not specifying payment details, stating that the parties should be able to determine these or seek a remand.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsLoss of UseFoot InjuryJury Verdict AppealSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodeAbuse of DiscretionMedical Evaluation
References
11
Case No. ADJ7644740
Regular
Dec 19, 2011

MIGUEL GARCIA vs. G.D. HEIL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous Findings and Order because the applicant raised valid issues regarding the employer's compliance with Medical Provider Network (MPN) notice requirements and the admissibility of evidence. The WCAB found the initial determination on temporary disability and MPN validity lacked sufficient evidentiary support and noted a contradiction between the WCJ's initial findings and later report. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to address these evidentiary and notice issues properly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Temporary DisabilitySelf-Procured Medical TreatmentNotice RequirementsPre-Trial Conference StatementAdmissibility of EvidenceLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 4616Administrative Director's Rule 9767.12(a)
References
6
Case No. M2016-02511-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2019

State of Tennessee v. John Steven Hernandez

John Steven Hernandez appealed his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder in Davidson County, Tennessee. He challenged the conviction based on alleged errors concerning pre- and post-indictment delays, motions to suppress evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Hernandez argued that the Public Defender's Office faced a systemic breakdown due to underfunding, impacting his right to a speedy trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no actual prejudice from delays was demonstrated, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Premeditated MurderCriminal AppealSpeedy Trial ViolationPre-Indictment DelayPost-Indictment DelaySystemic Breakdown of Public Defender SystemSufficiency of Evidence ChallengeMotion to Suppress EvidenceDNA Evidence AdmissibilityCircumstantial Evidence
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jernigan v. State

The appellant, Miles Jackson Jernigan, was convicted of arson and sentenced to 10 years confinement. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and several evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. The appellate court found reversible error in the improper admission of various civil lawsuit petitions and related documents without proper notice, which unfairly surprised and prejudiced the defense. The court also erred by admitting the entire deposition of a witness when only limited portions were utilized for impeachment purposes. Due to these significant evidentiary errors, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

ArsonCriminal LawEvidentiary ErrorHearsayNotice RequirementUnfair SurprisePrejudiceDepositionsImpeachmentSufficiency of Evidence
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 5,590 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