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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1990

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

Billy Don Hamrick sued several defendants for an unlawful arrest and car search, stemming from a warrant based on misrepresentations by Officer Dewayne Mixon. Mixon and Officer Jim Lane arrested Hamrick, who was never prosecuted. Hamrick alleged constitutional rights violations, leading to a jury verdict against Mixon, Lane, and Chief James H. Cook. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Mixon and Lane, upholding jury damage awards of $30,000 and $5,000, respectively. However, the motion was granted for Chief Cook due to insufficient evidence of his liability. The court also denied the defendants' alternative motion for a new trial.

Civil Rights ViolationUnlawful ArrestUnlawful Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictPolice MisconductProbable CauseFalse ArrestDue Process
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jose Madeira at a construction site. The plaintiff sued Affordable Housing, the site owner, and Mountain Developers, the general contractor, under New York Labor Law § 240(1) (Scaffold Law). A jury in Phase I found the defendants liable and awarded Jose Madeira $638,671.63. In Phase II, the jury determined that the third-party defendant, Cleidson Silva d/b/a C & L Construction (plaintiff's employer), was 82% liable for the accident, while Mountain and Affordable were each 9% liable based on an indemnification agreement. The court addresses post-trial motions from both third-party defendants (Silva) for a new trial and third-party plaintiffs (Affordable and Mountain) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which are denied. Key issues included the plaintiff's right to lost earnings as an undocumented worker, the jury's apportionment of fault, and the preclusion of proof regarding lack of insurance.

Scaffold LawLabor Law § 240(1)Indemnification AgreementThird-Party ActionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew Trial MotionUndocumented Worker RightsLost EarningsImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Apportionment of Fault
References
19
Case No. 01-02-01101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2006

N.N., Individually and A/N/F of A.B. v. the Institute for Rehabilitation and Research

N.N., as next friend of her brain-injured daughter A.B., sued The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) for negligence after A.B. was sexually assaulted by another patient while hospitalized. A jury found TIRR negligent and awarded A.B. $300,000 for past and $625,000 for future mental anguish. The trial court, however, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for future damages and suggested remittitur for past damages, leading to a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the JNOV, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the $625,000 award for future mental anguish. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of TIRR's negligence, rejecting TIRR's constitutional challenges to appellate review procedures, and remanded the case for judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.

Medical MalpracticeSexual AssaultBrain InjuryMental AnguishNegligenceDamagesJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV)Appellate ProcedureConstitutional LawStandard of Care
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Downing v. Burns

The dissenting opinion by Justice KEM THOMPSON FROST challenges the majority's decision to reverse a trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on a defamation claim. The dissent argues that there was insufficient evidence to support defamation damages under the per quod jury charge, emphasizing that appellate review must adhere to the legal theory presented to the jury. It further asserts that if the JNOV on defamation was indeed erroneous, the proper remedy under appellate rules would be to render judgment on the jury's original verdict of $42,770, rather than remanding for a new trial. Additionally, the dissent agrees with the reversal and remand of a tortious-interference claim for a new trial.

defamationtortious interferencejudgment notwithstanding the verdictJNOVappellate procedurejury chargedamagesper seper quodlegal sufficiency
References
9
Case No. 14-06-00592-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2007

Ace American Insurance Company v. Erasmo Marez

This is a workers' compensation case where the jury initially found that Erasmo Marez was not injured during his employment. However, the trial court granted Marez's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and ordered Ace American Insurance Company to pay Marez's attorney's fees. Ace appealed, arguing that sufficient evidence supported the jury's original verdict. The appellate court agreed with Ace, finding that the jury was within its rights to discredit Marez's inconsistent testimony and resolve conflicting evidence in Ace's favor. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's JNOV and the award of attorney's fees, rendering judgment in favor of Ace American Insurance Company.

Judgment Notwithstanding the VerdictJury Verdict ReversalAppellate ProcedureWitness CredibilityConflicting EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's Fees AwardCompensability ClaimEmployment InjuryDe Novo Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 1968

Weeks v. Beardsley

Raymond H. Weeks, an employee of joint venture contractors, died on October 30, 1964, after being struck by an automobile operated by Beverly J. Beardsley. The plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the defendants, which resulted from a jury verdict of no cause of action, and an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside that verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury's findings regarding the decedent's contributory negligence and the defendant operator's freedom from negligence were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, and therefore, the verdict was not palpably wrong.

Wrongful DeathAutomobile AccidentContributory NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyNegligenceMotion to Set Aside VerdictTrial TermAffirmed Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Controls Solutions, Inc., United Phosphorus, Inc. and Mark Boyd v. Gharda USA, Inc. and Gharda Chemical Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal from a trial court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in a products liability and negligence lawsuit. Appellants Control Solutions, Inc., United Phosphorous, Inc., and Mark Boyd sued Gharda Chemicals, Ltd. and Gharda USA, Inc., alleging that "off-spec" chemicals caused a warehouse fire. The appellate court found that the trial court erroneously disregarded expert testimony regarding fire origin, chemical contamination, and manufacturing defects. Concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on negligence, product defect, and causation, the court reversed the JNOV. The case was remanded for entry of judgment on the original jury verdict in favor of the appellants.

Product LiabilityNegligenceManufacturing DefectMarketing DefectExpert Testimony ReliabilityDaubert StandardJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Fire InvestigationChemical ContaminationChlorpyrifos
References
48
Case No. 01-15-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2016

Kendrick Donahoe v. Danny Jones

Kendrick Donahoe appealed a take-nothing judgment against him in a negligence suit against Danny Jones. Donahoe contended the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on negligence per se and by denying his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found Donahoe failed to preserve some issues for review and, crucially, failed to file a reporter's record, which led the court to presume the omitted evidence supported the trial court's judgment. The court also clarified that Texas Transportation Code § 545.351 regarding speed incorporates an ordinary negligence standard, precluding a negligence per se instruction.

NegligenceDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Jury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceReporter's RecordTraffic LawsNegligence Per SeAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. 01-00-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2002

Glass, Harry, III v. Amber, Inc.

Harry Glass, III sued Amber, Inc. for workers' compensation retaliation after he was terminated following several on-the-job injuries and filing workers' compensation claims. A jury awarded Glass compensatory and punitive damages, but the trial court granted Amber's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On appeal, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the JNOV regarding compensatory damages, finding legally sufficient circumstantial evidence of discriminatory termination, including knowledge of the claim, a negative attitude, failure to follow company policy, and a false reason for discharge. However, the Court affirmed the JNOV regarding punitive damages, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual malice, which requires ill-will or a specific intent to injure the employee, beyond economic self-interest or a desire to avoid detection. The case was remanded for entry of judgment on compensatory damages.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationWrongful TerminationJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesActual MaliceCircumstantial EvidenceTexas Labor CodeAbsence PolicyEmployee Evaluation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stevens v. National Education Centers, Inc.

Donna Huntsman Stevens sued National Education Centers, Inc. (NEC) for retaliatory termination after a workplace injury and filing a workers' compensation claim, alleging a violation of Labor Code chapter 451. A jury initially awarded Stevens damages, but the trial court granted NEC's judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), setting aside most damages except for liability and lost earnings. On appeal, the court affirmed the JNOV on actual malice due to insufficient evidence for exemplary damages, but reversed the JNOV on mental anguish damages, finding sufficient evidence. The court also limited lost earnings to the date the school closed, June 28, 1994. NEC's cross-appeal challenging liability under Labor Code section 451.001 was overruled. The judgment was affirmed as modified, entitling Stevens to past mental anguish damages and lost earnings until June 28, 1994.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Actual MaliceExemplary DamagesMental Anguish DamagesLost EarningsLabor Code Section 451.001Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 17,327 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