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

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Watson

This is an appeal by Texas General Indemnity Company in a worker's compensation case, challenging a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial based on jury misconduct. Appellee Watson, a truck driver, was injured in November 1977 and sued for total and permanent incapacity, receiving a judgment of $30,799.00. Texas General alleged jury misconduct, including the exclusion of two dissenting jurors from further deliberations and discussions of extraneous information by other jurors. The appellate court found that these acts constituted material jury misconduct that probably resulted in injury to Texas General. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Jury MisconductWorker's Compensation AppealMotion for New TrialExclusion of JurorsImproper Jury DeliberationExtraneous InformationProbable InjuryReversalRemandTotal Incapacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.

Chief Justice Walker dissents from the majority's decision to declare Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(b) unconstitutional. He argues that Rule 327(b) is not in fatal conflict with the Texas Constitution when properly construed in conjunction with Rule 327(a). Walker contends that the trial court correctly distinguished between jury deliberations and juror misconduct during voir dire, with Rule 327(a) allowing evidence of the latter. The dissent criticizes prior judicial interpretations that overly expand the definition of "jury deliberations," thereby improperly restricting the admission of evidence concerning juror bias during voir dire, which hinders a fair trial. Furthermore, the dissent questions the majority's constitutional challenge, stating that Rule 327(b) was not implicated in the trial court's decision regarding juror Maxwell's voir dire misconduct.

Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureJury MisconductVoir DireTexasDissenting OpinionRule 327(b) TRCPRule 327(a) TRCPJuror BiasMotion for New Trial
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Samandarov

The defendant, Samandarov, was convicted of attempted murder, assault, and weapons offenses. He appealed, alleging juror misconduct based on newspaper articles and hearsay about discussions of 'Russian Mob' ties, and a Rosario violation for un-disclosed police notes from witness interviews. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division denied his motions without hearings. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, noting the lack of evidence of outside influence for juror misconduct and strong counter-evidence from the prosecution against the Rosario claim. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order.

Attempted MurderSecond Degree AssaultWeapons OffensesJuror MisconductRosario ViolationCriminal Procedure LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCriminal CaseWitness Credibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dunlap

In a criminal appeal, the defendant was tried for a forcible sexual attack. During the trial, two jurors were excused by the court over the defendant's objection. The first juror knew the defendant's mother through work and union membership, but stated it wouldn't affect his duties. The second juror, a supervisor at General Motors, felt uncomfortable due to potential union trouble, though he didn't know the defendant's mother. The appellate court found this to be an error, stating that a juror can only be excused if "grossly unqualified" or for substantial misconduct, a burden not met in this case. The court reversed the judgment and granted a new trial, concluding that there was no factual demonstration that the jurors were grossly unqualified.

Jury SelectionGrossly Unqualified JurorJuror DisqualificationImpartial VerdictNew Trial GrantedAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureForcible Sexual AttackJuror MisconductDefendant's Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Losier v. Ravi

Orville and Joelle Losier appealed a jury verdict favoring Dr. Shivarajpur K. Ravi and Ambika Medical Group, P.A., in their medical malpractice claim. Mr. Losier underwent an IDET procedure where a catheter tip broke off and was left in his disc. The Losiers sued for negligence and asserted res ipsa loquitur. The trial court denied a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction and a motion for new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that res ipsa loquitur did not apply as the procedure was not within the common knowledge of laypersons and no probable injury from juror misconduct was shown.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturIDET ProcedureCatheter BreakageJuror MisconductJury InstructionAppellate ReviewSpine SurgeryPain Management
References
20
Case No. Dkt. No. 286
Regular Panel Decision

Rosemond v. United States

James Rosemond filed a habeas corpus petition, alleging four grounds for relief: the government's unconstitutional refusal to offer a cooperation agreement, failure to disclose impeachment material regarding a cooperating witness, ineffective assistance of counsel during proffer sessions and trial, and juror misconduct. The court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional violations or demonstrable prejudice. The court determined the government's discretion in cooperation agreements was not arbitrary, alleged non-disclosures were either truthful responses or not material, and counsel's strategic decisions, though unsuccessful, did not constitute ineffective assistance. Furthermore, the court found no showing of prejudice from alleged juror misconduct based on double hearsay.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselJuror MisconductCooperation AgreementProffer StatementsBrady ViolationDue ProcessSixth AmendmentCriminal ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co. v. Burmester

The case involves a personal injury suit filed by Kurt Burmester against Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, Danner, and others, where he sustained serious injuries in a car-train collision. The jury awarded Burmester $160,000 in damages. The defendants appealed, citing juror misconduct and arguing that Burmester was a guest passenger. Marina Mercante Nicaragüense, S. A., intervened seeking recovery for medical expenses paid to Burmester. The appellate court overruled the juror misconduct and guest statute arguments. However, it found the jury's damage award to be excessive by $40,000 and conditionally affirmed the judgment if Burmester filed a remittitur of that amount; otherwise, the case would be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court also denied the intervenor's claim for subrogation.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentTrain AccidentJuror MisconductVoir DireRemittiturExcessive DamagesGuest StatuteMaritime LawSubrogation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Rose

W. C. Rose, an employee, filed a workman's compensation suit against Trinity Universal Insurance Company after sustaining a permanent back injury on August 23, 1947. Rose was awarded total permanent disability by the trial court, a decision appealed by the insurance company. The appellant argued that the jury's finding of permanent disability was contrary to the evidence and that jury misconduct occurred due to jurors concealing prior back injuries during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that continued employment post-injury does not negate total permanent disability. It also found no reversible error regarding the alleged jury misconduct, as specific questions about back injuries were not asked, and the appellant failed to prove prior ignorance of the jurors' conditions.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityBack InjuryJury MisconductAppellate ReviewEvidentiary SufficiencyEarning CapacityInsurance DisputeTexas LawTrial Court Affirmation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,059 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