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. 04-82-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1982

Ex Parte Hovermale

Chester B. Hovermale, the relator, was confined for contempt due to his failure to pay his former wife, Elizabeth M. Hovermale, a portion of his military retirement pay as mandated by their divorce decree. He initiated a habeas corpus proceeding, contending that the division of military retirement benefits in the divorce decree was void, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McCarty v. McCarty. The Court of Appeals of Texas, en banc, distinguished McCarty and Hisquierdo based on varying types of preemption. The court declined to retroactively apply McCarty, emphasizing the doctrines of res judicata, finality of judgments, and the importance of stability in family law. Consequently, the court denied Hovermale's request for relief and ordered his remand to the custody of the Sheriff of Bexar County, explicitly rejecting the precedent set by Ex parte Buckhanan.

Preemption DoctrineSupremacy ClauseRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFinality of JudgmentsMilitary Retirement BenefitsCommunity Property LawHabeas CorpusContempt of CourtDivorce Decrees
References
47
Case No. 01-23-00174-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2025

Ex Parte Angel Eugene v. the State of Texas

This case, *Ex parte Angel Eugene*, concerns an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief by the 339th District Court in Harris County, Texas. The initial appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the First District Court of Appeals but was remanded by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to assess the trial court's jurisdiction over a contempt judgment. The central legal question revolves around whether the trial court had the authority to issue and subsequently withdraw a contempt judgment and show cause order, both of which were found to be void due to insufficient notice of the alleged offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction for both the initial void contempt orders and their purported dismissal. Ultimately, the denial of habeas corpus relief was affirmed because Angel Eugene was no longer under physical restraint at the time of the habeas hearing, despite her release stemming from invalid orders.

Habeas CorpusContempt JudgmentJurisdictionVoid OrderShow Cause OrderAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessRestraint of LibertyTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
References
17
Case No. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR, 03-05-00596-CR, 03-05-00597-CR, 03-05-00598-CR, 03-05-00599-CR, 03-05-00600-CR, 03-05-00601-CR, 03-05-00602-CR, 03-05-00603-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte Ellis

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro sought the dismissal of indictments accusing them of accepting unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the election code provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the money laundering statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the orders of the district court, holding that the election code's prohibitions on corporate political contributions are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the pre-2005 version of the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as it did not include checks.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineCampaign FinanceMoney LaunderingElection LawFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsStatutory InterpretationCriminal Indictments
References
83
Case No. 03-05-00585-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Ex Parte John Dominick Colyandro

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro appealed the denial of their pretrial habeas corpus petitions, seeking dismissal of indictments for unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the Texas Election Code provisions and the money laundering statute were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the district court's orders. The court held that the election code's restrictions on corporate campaign contributions were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the pre-2005 money laundering statute, which did not include checks or other negotiable instruments as "funds," was also not facially vague.

Campaign FinanceMoney LaunderingConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengeFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsElection CodeStatutory InterpretationPretrial Habeas Corpus
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Bradshaw

The City of Hillsboro enacted an ordinance regulating street vending within its fire limits, prohibiting general peddlers but exempting those selling products grown on their own property. Relator Bradshaw was arrested for violating this ordinance by peddling apples not grown on his land. He challenged his restraint via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the ordinance constituted void class legislation under the Texas Constitution. The county judge remanded Bradshaw, a decision which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that municipalities possess the authority to regulate street usage and peddling, and that the ordinance's classification was a reasonable exercise of police power, justified by public safety (fire access) and health concerns. The court also clarified that Hill County lacked the authority to permit street obstruction within city limits.

PeddlingStreet VendingCity OrdinanceClass LegislationEqual ProtectionMunicipal PowersPublic StreetsHabeas CorpusPolice PowerTexas Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Division

This concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Abell

John M. Abell, a psychologist, was held in contempt by the 126th District Court of Travis County for refusing to answer an interrogatory in a civil suit, which sought information about his sexual contact with other patients. Abell, the relator, sought release via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the information was protected by the recently enacted Article 5561h, Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann., which established confidentiality for mental health patient information. The Texas Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that Article 5561h applied retroactively to the discovery order, creating a privilege that forbade disclosure of patient identities and related information. Consequently, the trial court's order was deemed unauthorized, and Abell was discharged from custody.

Habeas CorpusContempt of CourtDiscovery PrivilegePatient ConfidentialityPsychologist-Patient PrivilegeRetroactive LawVested RightsTexas Civil ProcedureMental Health LawProfessional Malpractice
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Englutt

Charles Edgar Englutt was held in contempt by the Fannin County District Court for failing to pay child support to Mrs. Martha Ann Englutt, as ordered in their divorce decree. He was fined $500 and sentenced to 180 days in jail, plus coercive confinement until he paid $9,920 in arrearages and court costs. Englutt appealed the contempt adjudication via a writ of habeas corpus, claiming inability to pay and double jeopardy due to a prior criminal conviction and a previous contempt adjudication. The court found he did not conclusively establish his inability to comply with the order. It also ruled that the criminal punishment for non-support did not constitute double jeopardy for contempt arising from subsequent unpaid installments, and the previous habeas corpus release did not preclude further confinement for unpaid arrearages. The writ was denied, and Englutt was remanded to custody.

Child supportContempt of courtHabeas corpusDouble jeopardyInability to payArrearageFannin CountyTexas lawFamily lawEnforcement order
References
13
Case No. AP-75086
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2006

Ex Parte Martinez

José Noey Martinez, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, sought habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase. Martinez claimed his trial attorneys failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence of temporary insanity due to drug intoxication and a history of severe physical and sexual abuse. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the claims, including counsel's efforts to gather mitigating evidence and the advice from a psychologist. The court ultimately denied relief, concluding that trial counsel's performance was reasonable given the applicant's lack of cooperation and the strong aggravating evidence, and found no prejudice even if some deficiencies existed.

capital murderhabeas corpusineffective assistance of counselmitigating evidencevoluntary intoxicationtemporary insanity defensephysical abusesexual abuse allegationschild abandonmentappellate review
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,672 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