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. 09-06-126 CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2007

James Jones, A/K/A Squire James Jones, Jr. AKA Derrick Joseph Jones A/K/A Derrick Joseph v. State

James Jones was convicted of the murder of Graffit Jones Winford and sentenced to fifty years of confinement. On appeal, Jones argued the trial court erred by restricting his counsel's cross-examination of a State's witness during the punishment phase and by permitting the Court's bailiff to testify. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination, stating the proferred questions were either cumulative or irrelevant to punishment. Additionally, the court concluded that Jones suffered no prejudice or harm from the bailiff's brief testimony, given his minimal contact with the jury and the overall evidence. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingsConfrontation ClauseWitness ImpeachmentJudicial DiscretionBailiff RoleJury ImpactSchizoaffective DisorderMitigating Evidence
References
15
Case No. 02-21-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Texas Health Huguley, Inc., D/B/A Texas Health Huguley Hospital Fort Worth South, Dr. Jason Seiden, John Does 1-5, and Jane Roes 1-5 v. Erin Jones, Individually and as Legal Representative and Next Friend of Jason Jones

Jason Jones, suffering from post-COVID-19 complications, had his wife, Erin Jones, sue Texas Health Huguley Hospital and Dr. Jason Seiden to compel Ivermectin administration. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, ordering the hospital to grant temporary privileges to Dr. Mary Talley Bowden for this purpose. The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth reversed and vacated the injunction, holding that the judiciary cannot substitute its judgment for that of medical professionals in treatment and credentialing decisions without a valid legal basis. The court found Mrs. Jones failed to prove a probable right to recovery on any viable cause of action, including alleged violations of informed consent, pandemic liability waivers, CMS waivers, or the Right to Try Act, or breaches of implied contracts or the Hippocratic Oath.

Temporary InjunctionMedical TreatmentIvermectinCOVID-19 AftereffectsHospital PrivilegesJudicial InterventionMedical DiscretionStandard of CareDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Jones v. Halliburton Co.

Plaintiff Jamie Leigh Jones sued KBR Defendants alleging various claims including negligence, sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, fraud, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false imprisonment, stemming from events during her employment in Iraq where she was allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted by a coworker in KBR-provided housing. The KBR Defendants filed motions for partial summary judgment and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Defense Base Act (DBA) provided an exclusive remedy and that state common law claims were barred by the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The court denied dismissal based on the DBA, finding Jones's injuries did not arise out of her employment within the DBA's scope, and also ruled that her prior receipt of DBA benefits did not preclude her common law claims. However, the court granted summary judgment to the KBR Defendants on Jones's claims of negligence, negligent undertaking, breach of contract, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, concluding these were precluded by the TCHRA or failed as a matter of law. Summary judgment was denied on Jones's fraud in the inducement claims, as these were found to rest on a different factual predicate not barred by the TCHRA, and her claim of fraud in the inducement to agree to arbitration was not moot despite KBR's waiver of arbitration.

Sexual AssaultEmployment LawDefense Base ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentArbitration AgreementTexas Commission on Human Rights ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFraud in the InducementRetaliation
References
88
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Dempsey Ray Jones and his wife, Bobbye Jean Jones, appealed the trial court's granting of summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Jim Beard. Mr. Jones sustained a back injury while working at Wal-Mart in Pearland and initially sued for gross negligence. Wal-Mart successfully argued that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for non-fatal injuries, therefore precluding a gross negligence claim. The Joneses attempted to introduce an intentional tort claim in their summary judgment response, arguing it was not preempted. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the unpled intentional tort claim was not properly before the trial court as it was not included in the original or an amended petition.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentGross NegligenceIntentional TortPleading RequirementsElection of RemediesExclusive RemedyTexas LawEmployment InjuryAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. 07-01-0275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2003

Primrose Operating Company, Mike Byrd Casing Crews, Inc., and Byrd Power Tong Service, Inc. and Palmer Oil Field Construction Company v. Walter James Jones, III and Jona Jones, Ind. and as Next Friends for Their Minor Children

This case involves an appeal concerning an oilfield accident where Walter James Jones III and Jona Jones were awarded damages. Appellants Primrose Operating Company, Inc. and Palmer Oilfield Construction Inc. challenged the judgment. Key issues included allegations of jury tainting from a "mock trial" conducted by Jones's attorneys and the trial court's failure to submit a jury question regarding Primrose's right of control over Palmer's operations. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying the mistrial motion related to the mock trial. However, it determined that Jones failed to establish Primrose's duty, as a jury finding on control was a necessary element for their negligence claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered that Jones take nothing against Primrose and Palmer.

AppealOilfield AccidentNegligenceJury MisconductMock TrialRight of ControlIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityWorker InjuryDamages
References
20
Case No. 01-08-00905-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2009

Landon Jones and Loren Jones v. City of Houston

Landon and Loren Jones appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Houston. The Jones siblings sought damages for mental anguish and emotional trauma as bystanders after their thirteen-year-old brother, Logan, drowned in a culvert owned by the City. They arrived at the scene after being notified and observed Logan's body being recovered, but not the actual drowning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the siblings did not meet the requirement of a 'sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident' for bystander recovery under Texas law, as established by United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Keith. The court found no analytical difference between this case and a car accident scenario in prior jurisprudence, thereby overuling the Jones siblings' sole issue.

Bystander ClaimsWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressMental AnguishContemporaneous PerceptionAppellate ReviewTexas LawDrowning AccidentTort Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Shalala

Plaintiff Glenn Jones challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Jones, who sustained a back injury in 1988, had his application for benefits denied initially and on reconsideration, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council. The District Court reviewed the ALJ's decision, focusing on the application of the treating physician rule and the determination of Jones's residual functional capacity for sedentary work. The court found that the ALJ properly considered contradictory medical evidence from consulting physicians and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Jones could perform sedentary work. Consequently, the court affirmed the Secretary's determination, denying Jones's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the defendant's cross-motion.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkBack InjuryMedical EvidenceALJ DecisionAffirmed DecisionFederal Court Action
References
8
Case No. W2013-02119-CCA-R3-CD, 12-03532
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones appealed his conviction for aggravated assault in Shelby County Criminal Court, where he was sentenced to ten years as a Range II, multiple offender, for the beating of Jack Austin. The incident stemmed from a dispute over unpaid lawn mowing, leading to Austin being attacked by a group of young men, including Jones, resulting in severe injuries. While Austin could not specifically identify Jones as delivering blows, eyewitness Cheryl Marty corroborated Jones's presence and participation with the group. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including through the theory of criminal responsibility, as Jones associated himself with the venture and acted with knowledge of the offense.

Aggravated AssaultCriminal ResponsibilitySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court AffirmationEyewitness TestimonyVictim InjuryGroup AssaultPolice InvestigationWitness Credibility
References
17
Case No. W2013-01817-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2014

Lataynia Jones v. Sharp Electronics Corporation

Plaintiff Lataynia Jones filed an action against Sharp Electronics Corporation alleging retaliation and interference under the Tennessee Disabilities Act (TDA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sharp, finding that the TDA does not mandate 'reasonable accommodations' as sought by Jones in the form of extended leave. Jones appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, reiterating that unlike federal law, the TDA does not impose a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodations, and that Jones's disability prevented her from performing her job duties without additional leave time beyond what was provided by the FMLA and CBA.

Disability DiscriminationTennessee Disability Act (TDA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Summary Judgment AffirmationEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationAppellate Court DecisionShelby County Circuit CourtDepression and Bipolar DisorderCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keenan v. Jones

Paul D. Keenan and Nora Keenan filed a complaint against Melvin Jones and J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., alleging negligence caused Keenan's workplace injuries. Defendants then filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity or contribution from Silo, Inc., Keenan's employer. During the proceedings, the New York Legislature enacted the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996, which largely eliminated employer liability for contribution or indemnity. Silo, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment, arguing the Omnibus Act should apply retroactively to bar the claim. The court denied Silo's motion, concluding that New York courts consistently hold the Omnibus Act applies prospectively only and does not affect pending cases.

Workers' Compensation Reform ActOmnibus ActRetroactive ApplicationProspective ApplicationSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ClaimIndemnityContributionEmployer LiabilityNew York Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,070 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