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. 11-09-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

Kelvin E. Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis appealed the trial court's decision, which granted the attorney general's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed his claim for crime victim compensation as untimely. Louis argued that the 40-day period for filing a lawsuit for judicial review should start from the date of his amended notice of dissatisfaction, not his initial notice. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory 40-day period commences upon the filing of the initial notice of dissatisfaction. Consequently, Louis's lawsuit was deemed untimely, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessCrime Victim CompensationPlea to JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureNotice of DissatisfactionSubject-Matter JurisdictionFiling DeadlineTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 10785/96
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Seda

The defendant, charged with multiple felonies including attempted murder, moved to dismiss counts 1-10 of the indictment, arguing that the prosecution was time-barred as the crimes occurred in March 1990 and the indictment was filed in August 1996, exceeding the five-year statute of limitations for felonies. The People countered, citing CPL 30.10 (4) (a) (ii), which tolls the limitation period when the defendant's whereabouts are continuously unknown despite reasonable diligence, arguing they didn't know the defendant's identity until his 1996 arrest. The court, interpreting 'whereabouts' to mean the location of a known perpetrator rather than the identity of an unknown one, ruled in favor of the defendant. Consequently, the motion to dismiss counts 1-10 was granted, while counts 11-15, pertaining to later crimes, remained active.

Criminal Procedure LawStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnknown WhereaboutsIdentity of PerpetratorReasonable DiligenceFelony ChargesIndictment DismissalAttempted MurderJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. State

This dissenting opinion argues against a restrictive interpretation of the time limitation for filing claims under the Texas Crime Victims Compensation Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309-1). Commissioner Burdock contends that the 180-day filing deadline should be subject to tolling provisions, particularly when a victim is incapacitated, similar to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent emphasizes that a strict application, as advocated by the State of Texas, could unjustly deny benefits to seriously injured crime victims who are unable to file due to incapacity, thus undermining the Act's purpose of compensating victims.

Crime Victims Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationTolling of LimitationsIncapacitated VictimsWorkers' Compensation ActTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardLegislative IntentDissenting OpinionVictim Rights
References
5
Case No. M2017-02178-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Darius Alexander Cox

Defendant Darius Alexander Cox was convicted of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, receiving a total effective sentence of forty years. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, admission of other crimes, prosecutorial comments, and consecutive sentences. The appellate court found reversible error in the admission of evidence of other crimes, specifically noting that the probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice, which likely affected the jury's verdict. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The court also addressed, for guidance, the prosecutorial argument and consecutive sentencing, affirming the latter due to the defendant's extensive criminal history as a professional criminal.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceRule 404(b)Other Crimes EvidenceUnfair PrejudiceHarmless ErrorProsecutorial MisconductConsecutive Sentencing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Clarke

The case involves the appeal of Brian Clarke's conviction for felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The initial judgment sentenced him to 25 years to life for murder in the second degree. On appeal, the court found that the defendant received meaningful representation and the motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. However, the appellate court, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, reduced the sentence for murder in the second degree to a term of 15 years to life. This modification was based on factors such as it being the defendant's first offense, his below-average intelligence, and the jury's conviction solely on the felony-murder count. A dissenting opinion argued against the sentence reduction, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime—a cold-blooded execution during a robbery—and the defendant's background as an admitted drug dealer.

Criminal LawFelony MurderRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSentence ReductionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial MisconductSuppression MotionMeaningful RepresentationMental Capacity
References
9
Case No. 01-18-00863-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

Charles Lee Farris, Jr. v. State

This dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of a conviction for murder, an "Old Code felony crime," on the grounds that the appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The dissenting judge asserts that Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution provides an absolute mandate for a speedy public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal prosecutions, a mandate that has been consistently overlooked by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The opinion delves into the historical context of this provision, tracing its origins to the 1836 Texas Declaration of Rights and highlighting the framers' intent to protect individual liberties against governmental overreach, particularly contrasting with Mexican civil law. It critiques the legislative and judicial expansion of jury trial waivers, arguing they defy the clear constitutional requirement for Old Code felony prosecutions. The dissent concludes that, given the specific mandate for such cases, the appellant's conviction should be reversed and remanded for a jury trial.

Criminal ProsecutionJury Trial RightsTexas Constitutional LawOld Code FeloniesDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessLegal InterpretationCriminal ProcedureWaiver of Jury Trial
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis, a crime victim, sought judicial review after the attorney general denied his compensation claim. The trial court dismissed Louis's lawsuit, ruling it was untimely filed, having been brought more than 40 days after his initial notice of dissatisfaction. Louis appealed, arguing the time limit should commence from his amended notice of dissatisfaction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory 40-day period for filing suit begins to run from the date the initial notice of dissatisfaction is filed, thus making Louis's lawsuit untimely.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessPlea to JurisdictionCrime Victim CompensationStatutory ConstructionNotice of DissatisfactionTexas Administrative CodeAppellate ProcedureSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. 03-13-00723-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2015

Charles Anthony Malouff, Jr. v. State

Charlie Malouff, representing himself, seeks extraordinary relief from a felony conviction for 'Securing Document By Deception' in Travis County, Texas. He alleges extensive misconduct by police, prosecutors, his trial and appellate counsel, and the presiding judge, Karen Sage. Key allegations include falsification of time sheets, destruction of exculpatory evidence (wind energy systems), misleading a magistrate to obtain search warrants, Brady violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel due to conflicts of interest. Malouff claims Judge Sage's decisions were influenced by pecuniary and political interests related to her re-election campaign, arguing these cumulative errors resulted in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, violating his constitutional rights.

MisconductDue ProcessFair TrialBrady ViolationsIneffective Assistance of CounselJudicial BiasProsecutorial MisconductPolice MisconductFelony ConvictionHabeas Corpus
References
156
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Leak

The petitioner, who was shot in 1991, applied to the Crime Victims Board for compensation, including lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board initially awarded compensation for property loss and medical expenses, and later counsel fees. Petitioner appealed the denial of lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board's denial was based on insufficient evidence of prior employment and occupational limitations. The court affirmed the Board's denial, finding the proof for lost earnings highly speculative and the need for vocational rehabilitation not established. However, the court modified the counsel fee award from $65 to $80, correcting an error regarding the petitioner's retainer payment.

Crime Victims BoardLost EarningsVocational RehabilitationCounsel FeesCPLR Article 78Executive LawSubstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofCompensation DenialAlbany County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 340 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