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. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. 03A01-9901-CH-00030
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1999

Michael Phillips v. Morrill Electric, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the defendant-employer, Morrill Electric, Inc., in an action for breach of employment contract brought by plaintiff Michael Phillips. Phillips, hired as a Special Assistant to the President for a five-year term, was terminated for "cause" following a company restructuring and reassignment to a significantly lower-level production job. The Trial Court upheld the termination, but the Court of Appeals found that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the true cause of Phillips's termination, specifically whether it was due to restructuring or poor performance. Furthermore, the appellate court identified a genuine issue of fact concerning whether Phillips received adequate written notice specifying the reasons for his termination as required by the employment agreement. Consequently, the summary judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for a full trial to resolve these factual disputes.

Employment contractWrongful terminationSummary judgmentBreach of contractDemotionNotice requirementMaterial factsAppellate reviewTennessee lawEmployment dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Covino v. Hagemann

The plaintiff, Lee Covino, sued defendant Ray E. Hagemann for defamation (libel and slander) after Hagemann sent a note to Covino, copied to Borough President Guy Molinari, accusing Covino of 'racially insensitive attitudes' towards Ed Watkins. Hagemann also allegedly repeated these statements to newspaper employees. The court considered whether the statements were actionable facts or protected opinions. Applying the three-prong test from Gross v New York Times Co., the court found terms like 'racially insensitive' to be vague, ambiguous opinions incapable of being proven true or false, and not implying undisclosed defamatory facts. The court also rejected claims that the statements constituted a crime or harmed Covino in his profession, stating they were nonactionable rhetorical hyperbole. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action was granted, and the complaint was dismissed, with attorneys' fees denied.

DefamationLibelSlanderFreedom of SpeechOpinion vs FactCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissRacially InsensitivePublic OfficialsEmployment Dispute
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2000

Doe v. United States

In March 1997, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas published a false news release stating that Plaintiffs had been indicted by a federal grand jury for mail fraud and money laundering, despite no such indictments occurring. Plaintiffs, associated with various temporary labor companies, filed a lawsuit in November 1999, seeking money damages from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, after an administrative claim went unanswered. The Defendant, United States, moved to dismiss the case, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity and the intentional tort exceptions under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) of the FTCA. The Court granted the motion, finding that both claims 'arose out of' libel or slander, which are explicitly excepted from the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the invasion of privacy claim by publication of private facts failed because it requires the publication of true, intimate facts, whereas the Plaintiffs' complaint centered on the publication of falsehoods. Consequently, all of Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Sovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionLibelSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressInvasion of PrivacyPublication of Private FactsFalsehoods
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Vega v. Gasper

This document presents the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from a hearing held on January 18, 1995, in El Paso, Texas, following a remand from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court addressed the compensability of morning and afternoon wait times for seasonal agricultural workers employed by Defendant John W. Gasper. It concluded that both periods of wait time were compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as they primarily benefited Gasper and employees could not effectively use the time for personal purposes. The court also determined that Gasper lacked good faith and reasonable grounds for his failure to compensate the plaintiffs, making him liable for liquidated damages under the FLSA and statutory damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (AWPA). Consequently, the court ordered a recomputation of the ultimate award in favor of the plaintiffs.

Agricultural LaborWage DisputesFair Labor Standards ActWorker ProtectionCompensable TimeLiquidated DamagesEmployer ResponsibilityRemand CaseTexas LawNew Mexico Employment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,150 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