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. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clay v. Aig Aerospace Insurance Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a small aircraft crash that killed pilot Dale “Scooter” Phillips, Jr., and his passenger, Amy Clay. Their estates and families, the Appellants, sued AIG Aerospace Insurance Services, Inc., alleging strict liability and negligence. They claimed AIG failed to provide adequate warnings when it sold a hurricane-damaged salvage aircraft, from which an engine and vacuum pump later entered commerce and were installed in Phillips’ plane, leading to the crash. A jury found that AIG was not in the business of selling aircraft components and that Phillips' negligence was the sole proximate cause. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment for AIG. On appeal, the Appellants challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's findings, alleged improper judicial comments, and contested the refusal of a specific jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, the judge's comments were not improper, and the jury instruction refusal was within judicial discretion.

Aircraft CrashStrict LiabilityNegligenceSalvage AircraftProduct LiabilityAircraft Engine FailureVacuum Pump FailureProximate CauseJury FindingsAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. 10-97-184-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1998

Zurich Insurance Company v. Rosie Lee Walker

Zurich Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict that awarded workers' compensation damages to Rosie Lee Walker for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Walker, an employee of Jon-Lin Corporation, developed the condition from repetitive work. Zurich argued that Walker's trial counsel engaged in improper and prejudicial jury argument. The appellate court found Walker's counsel's comments improper but not incurable, and for the properly preserved complaint, determined no reversible harm resulted. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying Walker's request for frivolous appeal damages.

Workers' CompensationJury ArgumentImproper ArgumentHarmless ErrorIncurable ErrorAppellate ReviewCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTotal Loss of UseFrivolous AppealTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 06-06-00220-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2008

Curt Anthony Porter v. State

Curt Anthony Porter was convicted of murder for shooting Derrick Kennedy. He appealed his conviction, raising multiple issues including legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, alleged prosecutorial comments on his failure to testify, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of his motion for a new trial, and the assertion that his life imprisonment sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeals overruled all of Porter's points of error, finding sufficient evidence, no improper comments, and no ineffective assistance. The court also affirmed the denial of a new trial and found the sentence permissible. The trial court's judgment was reformed to correct a clerical error regarding the cited penal code.

MurderSufficiency of EvidenceIneffective Assistance of CounselCruel and Unusual PunishmentClerical ErrorSudden Passion DefenseJury MisconductAppellate ReviewCriminal LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. City of Midland

In a Worker’s Compensation Act case, the jury found a specific injury (permanent partial loss of use of the left hand) but no general injury, despite the worker's assertion of a general injury affecting the sympathetic nervous system. The Appellant, a Midland City police officer, suffered an injury to his hand/wrist while on duty, leading to symptoms like reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in its jury charge by improperly defining 'general injury' and by submitting specific injury issues in a manner that constituted an improper comment on the weight of the evidence and misallocated the burden of proof. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

Worker's CompensationJury Charge ErrorGeneral InjurySpecific InjuryReflex Sympathetic DystrophyRemandAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceNerve InjuryTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 02C01-9608-CR-00282
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1997

State v. John Knapp

The defendant, John Knapp, appealed his conviction for attempted second-degree murder, for which he received a ten-year sentence. Knapp raised several issues on appeal, including allegations that the trial judge improperly limited cross-examination of the victim, made inappropriate comments on the evidence, and violated the rule of witness sequestration. The appellate court found that any errors in precluding cross-examination on prior inconsistent statements were harmless given the context. The court also determined that the violation of the sequestration rule was harmless as the victim was not recalled to testify. Additionally, claims of judicial misconduct through comments and body language were deemed inconsequential or cured by jury instructions. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree MurderAppellate ReviewWitness SequestrationCross-ExaminationJudicial MisconductHarmless ErrorCredibilityCriminal Injuries CompensationWorkers' Compensation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. Boyd

Norman Boyd sued his former employer, Fluor Daniel, Inc., for wrongful termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after an on-the-job injury and subsequent medical care led to his layoff. The jury initially awarded Boyd actual and punitive damages. Fluor Daniel appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, charge error, and evidentiary rulings. The appellate court found a specific jury instruction, which suggested that informing a supervisor of an injury and requesting medical care could constitute the institution of a workers' compensation claim, was an improper comment on the weight of the evidence. This error was deemed likely to have caused an improper verdict. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureLegal SufficiencyEvidenceDamagesTexas LawReversalRemand
References
18
Case No. 13-03-404-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2006

Whitney Gerrard Carson v. State

Whitney Gerrard Carson appealed his murder conviction and fifty-year prison sentence. He was found guilty of murdering his estranged wife, Jocelyn Carson. On appeal, Carson raised five issues, alleging errors by the trial court including failure to grant a mistrial regarding a prosecutor's comment, granting a hearsay objection, denying mistrials for improper cross-examination, denying mistrials for improper jury argument, and denying a mistrial after a State witness's outburst. The Court of Appeals addressed each issue, often concluding that any potential errors were either not preserved for review or were cured by the trial court's instructions to disregard. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings and ultimately affirmed the judgment.

Murder convictionAppellate procedureMistrial motionHearsayCross-examinationJury argumentSpectator misconductPreservation of errorAbuse of discretionTexas Court of Appeals
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Duree

This case addresses the interpretation of "sudden and immediate" for hernia compensability under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act. Morris Arden Duree, an employee, experienced a groin injury at work and discovered a hernia lump ten days later, subsequently filing for benefits. The defendant, Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), challenged the jury's finding, arguing the ten-day delay negated the "sudden and immediate" requirement and that the jury instructions were improper. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that "sudden and immediate" is a relative term and that a ten-day interval does not automatically preclude compensation when a causal link is evident. Furthermore, the court found the jury instructions to be legally sound and not an improper comment on the evidence.

HerniaWorker's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationJury InstructionsMedical EvidenceCausationAppellate LawTexas Court of AppealsInjury ClaimEmployer Liability
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,939 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