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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. State

Rosendo Guzman Ramirez was convicted of burglary of a vehicle after being found on a freight train in El Paso, Texas, along with other individuals. Railroad security officers discovered a broken seal on a trailer where Ramirez and others were apprehended. The State argued that Ramirez's attempt to obtain a free ride constituted theft of service, thereby demonstrating intent to commit theft for the burglary charge. However, the court reversed the conviction, clarifying that a freight train does not provide service for compensation. Therefore, "riding-the-rails" does not fulfill the criteria for theft of service under Texas Penal Code Section 31.04(a), and the intent to commit theft, a necessary element for burglary of a vehicle under Section 30.04, was not proven. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment of not guilty.

Texas Penal CodeBurglary of VehicleTheft of ServiceFreight TrainRosendo Guzman RamirezCriminal TrespassIntent to Commit TheftUndocumented WorkersEl PasoConviction Reversed
References
0
Case No. 278 S.W.3d 778
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

Roberts v. State

Mary Roberts appealed her conviction on five counts of theft by coercion or deception. Between April and October 2001, Roberts engaged in sexual relations with multiple men. Her husband, Ted Roberts, subsequently initiated pre-suit discovery petitions (Rule 202 Petitions) against these men, alleging adultery and other potential claims, and demanding monetary settlements. Mary Roberts actively assisted Ted by typing revisions to the petitions, delivering one petition, and arranging meetings. The complainants paid significant sums, portions of which were used for the Roberts' personal expenses, including the purchase of a new home. On appeal, Roberts challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing a lack of causation and intent, and asserted an affirmative defense of mistake of law. She also raised issues regarding jury instructions, the indictment's sufficiency, and the constitutionality of the theft statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, finding sufficient evidence of her intent and criminal responsibility as a party to the offense, upholding the trial court's jury instructions, and rejecting her challenges to the indictment and the theft statute's constitutionality. The court clarified that the State was not required to establish "but for" causation but rather that Roberts acted with intent to assist Ted in committing theft by deception or coercion.

TheftCoercionDeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityParty to OffenseAffirmative DefenseMistake of LawJury InstructionIndictment SufficiencyConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1028
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2004

In Re Commitment of Fisher

This case involves the civil commitment of Michael James Fisher as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. The Supreme Court of Texas addresses whether the Act is punitive or civil, concluding that it is civil based on legislative intent and its non-punitive effects, despite provisions for criminal penalties for violations of commitment conditions. The opinion also rejects Fisher's arguments regarding the right to be competent at trial in a civil commitment proceeding, Fifth Amendment self-incrimination, and facial vagueness challenges to the Act's "behavioral abnormality" definition and individualized treatment. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, which had found the Act punitive and unconstitutional, and affirmed Fisher's civil commitment.

Sexually Violent Predator ActCivil CommitmentDue ProcessConstitutional LawPunitive vs. CivilBehavioral AbnormalityMental CompetencyFifth AmendmentVagueness ChallengeOutpatient Treatment
References
54
Case No. 02-18-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

in Re: The Commitment of Gregory A. Jones

Gregory A. Jones appealed the trial court's order committing him as a sexually violent predator. Psychologists Jason Dunham and Sheri Gaines evaluated Jones, testifying to his behavioral abnormality and likelihood to commit sexually violent offenses based on his criminal history, risk factors, and test results. The jury found Jones to be a sexually violent predator. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient but reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The reversal was due to the trial court's error in denying Jones's request for a jury instruction allowing a non-unanimous (10-2) verdict for a 'no' finding, which is permissible under civil procedure rules for non-affirmative determinations.

Sexually Violent PredatorCivil CommitmentJury InstructionLegal SufficiencyBehavioral AbnormalityRisk AssessmentRecidivismExpert TestimonyForensic PsychologyCriminal History
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
Case No. 09-06-180 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

in Re Commitment of Michael Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order issued under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of his expert witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and psychotherapist Sara Smith, citing improper disclosure and the failure to hold a gatekeeper hearing for the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula. He also alleged improper closing arguments by the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Marks failed to timely disclose expert testimony, did not properly request a gatekeeper hearing, and waived objections to the closing arguments.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predator ActExpert Witness ExclusionDiscovery RulesGatekeeper HearingClosing ArgumentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMental IllnessSchizoaffective Disorder
References
16
Case No. NO. 09-13-00513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2014

in Re Commitment of Alonzo May

Alonzo May appealed from a jury verdict civilly committing him as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151. May raised two issues: the trial court's striking of his counterclaim for declaratory judgment regarding the statute's unconstitutionality, and its alleged failure to properly take judicial notice of two U.S. Supreme Court cases, leading to denied jury instruction requests. The Court of Appeals found May's issues without merit. It affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the counterclaim, noting May could and did raise constitutionality as an affirmative defense. The court also held that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the law and did not abuse its discretion in refusing May's proposed jury instructions, as the given charge closely tracked the statutory language.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent PredatorConstitutional LawJury InstructionsStatutory InterpretationAffirmative DefenseJudicial NoticeAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsHealth and Safety Code
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,930 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