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. 04-94-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1996

Matter of Mrr

Appellant M.R.R., Jr., a juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing capital murder and received a forty-year determinate sentence. The appellant appealed, alleging the trial court failed to provide the mandatory admonitions required by TEX.FAM.CODE ANN., Sec. 54.03(b) at the adjudication hearing. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, sustained the appellant's point of error, holding that the omission of these admonitions constituted fundamental, reversible error that could not be waived by lack of objection or deemed harmless. The court rejected the State's arguments to abandon the fundamental error doctrine or apply a harmless error analysis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

Juvenile LawDelinquent ConductCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAdmonitionsReversible ErrorAppellate Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re M.R.R.

The appellant, a juvenile, was charged with capital murder and received a 40-year sentence. The appeal stemmed from the trial court's failure to provide mandatory admonitions under Tex.Fam.Code Ann., Sec. 54.03(b) during the adjudication hearing. Despite the State conceding the error, it argued for harmless error or abandonment of the fundamental error doctrine. The appellate court reaffirmed its precedent, ruling that the omission of these admonitions constitutes fundamental, reversible error that cannot be cured. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Juvenile DelinquencyCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessStatutory AdmonishmentsReversible ErrorTexas Family CodeAppellate ProcedureJuvenile Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 1979

People v. Broome

The defendant appealed a judgment from Ulster County Court convicting him of felony murder and robbery in the first degree, stemming from the stabbing death of Raymond Parker. The appeal challenged the trial court's deadline for pretrial motions, the voluntariness of his confession, and an alleged jury charge error regarding the confession. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the pretrial motion deadline, upheld the finding that the statement was voluntary after Miranda warnings, and deemed the jury charge error harmless given overwhelming proof of guilt. The court also rejected the merger doctrine argument for the underlying felony.

Felony MurderRobbery First DegreeStabbingPretrial MotionsMiranda AdmonitionsVoluntary StatementJury Charge ErrorLesser Included OffenseMerger DoctrineAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 10-94-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Randall Clark v. Blakely Carpet Crafts, Inc., D/B/A Blakely Floor Studio

Appellants Randall Clark, et al. filed a motion for rehearing challenging two aspects of a previous decision. First, they argued the 'joint enterprise' doctrine applied to business arrangements beyond joint ventures or partnerships, citing *Shoemaker v. Estate of Whistler*. The court reaffirmed its stance that the doctrine was not intended for non-conveyance contexts and found no evidence supporting its application in the conveyance context of Hatten's vehicle. Second, appellants contended the trial court erred in excluding two exhibits, compromise and settlement agreements detailing workers' compensation payments made to Hatten and Edmonson by Blakely Carpet Crafts's carrier. The court ruled that the exclusion was within its discretion, as the exhibits were cumulative of other evidence and testimony, and any error was deemed harmless, not impacting the judgment. Consequently, the Appellants' motion for rehearing was denied.

Joint Enterprise DoctrineWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExclusion of EvidenceCumulative EvidenceHarmless ErrorAppellate ReviewMotion for RehearingTexas Civil ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsEmployment Status
References
4
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. ADJ3283274 (VNO 0386537) ADJ4545965 (VNO 0386536) ADJ3421140 (VNO 0347301)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

BARBARA STRAUSS vs. WEST MARINE, INC., CIGA for RELIANCE in liquidation, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration. The error involved the incorrect assignment of ADJ and VNO numbers to the relevant case numbers. The WCAB is correcting this error to accurately reflect the case numbers as ADJ3283274 and VNO 0386537. This correction ensures proper record-keeping for applicant Barbara Strauss and defendants West Marine, Inc., et al.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorCorrected Case NumberADJ NumberVNO NumberReversal of NumbersLiquidation
References
0
Case No. ADJ7003833, et al.
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

MARTHA AGUIRE, et al. vs. TWO STAR PERSONNEL, administered by SEDGWICK CMS, ; et al.

This order corrects clerical errors in a prior Board decision concerning a sanction against lien claimant Safety Works, Inc. The errors involved omitting a critical attachment listing cases for reconsideration and failing to include the firm Floyd, Skeren and Kelly on the service list. The Board is correcting these errors by adding the firm to the service list and attaching the missing document. This ensures all parties are properly notified and that the prior decision accurately reflects the proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorsPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ SanctionLien ClaimantService ListInterlineationDecision After ReconsiderationSafety WorksInc.
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

In the Interest of J.F.C.

This dissenting opinion addresses a parental-rights-termination case where the central issue is whether appellate courts can review unpreserved jury-charge errors under the common-law doctrine of fundamental error in Texas. Justice Hankinson argues for the application of fundamental error review, particularly when significant public interests, such as the "best interest of the child" as articulated in Texas statutes and caselaw, are involved. She identifies the trial court's jury charge, which omitted instructions on the children's "best interest," as erroneous. However, she disagrees with the court of appeals' finding that this error was harmful, citing overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting termination based on the children's best interest. She also concludes that broad-form jury questions did not violate due process. Justice Hankinson dissents from the majority's opinion and judgment, criticizing its avoidance of the fundamental error review issue and its incorrect finding of harmful error, which led to the reversal and remand of the trial court's judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessFundamental ErrorJury Charge ErrorError PreservationAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildTexas Family LawDissenting OpinionCivil Procedure
References
80
Showing 1-10 of 3,491 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