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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. NO. 01-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2007

Yahya Hassan, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Company and Kemal Mohammed, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Cab Company v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A Yellow Cab

This is a dissenting opinion in a trade dress infringement case brought by Greater Houston Transportation Company d/b/a Yellow Cab against Yahya Hassan and Kemal Mohammed d/b/a Safe Cab Co. under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that the appellant failed to preserve its challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and erroneously rejected a legally correct jury charge on 'secondary meaning.' Justice Keyes, the author of the dissent, contends that the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous and, even if it were, the error would not have caused an improper judgment due to sufficient evidence of trade dress infringement. The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.

Trade Dress InfringementLanham ActSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawUnfair CompetitionTaxi Services
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 1986

Claim of Seidel v. Crown Industries

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to a claimant, who the Board ruled was not the legal widow of the decedent, Harold Seidel. The employer and carrier challenged the claimant's right to compensation, asserting that decedent's prior marriage to Marion Strope was never legally terminated. Both claimant and Strope presented marriage certificates. The court noted the strong legal presumption favoring the validity of the second marriage, especially when the challenger is a stranger to the marital relation. The respondents bore the burden of disproving the second marriage by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the Board's decision failed to set forth the proper legal standard and appeared to give undue weight to the claimant's knowledge of the prior marriage, which is irrelevant to her legal widow status. Due to the serious question regarding the application of the correct legal standard and the close factual question, the decision was annulled and remitted for clarification and further proceedings consistent with the proper legal standard.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationMarital StatusLegal WidowPresumption of ValiditySecond MarriageBurden of ProofAdministrative LawRemittalJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. 06-05-00036-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2006

Brookshire Grocery Company v. Barbara Goss

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of an employee, Barbara Goss, against her employer, Brookshire Grocery Company, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Goss was awarded $726,078.50 in damages by a jury for injuries sustained in an accident on Brookshire's premises. Brookshire appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding duty, proximate cause, and damages, as well as alleging charge error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on all challenged issues.

Nonsubscriber EmployerEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceProximate CauseDamages AwardLoss of Earning CapacityPhysical ImpairmentMedical Expenses
References
38
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03928 [218 AD3d 790]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

People v. Carlton

The defendant, Victor A. Carlton, appealed his conviction for robbery in the first degree and unlawful possession of marihuana. His appeal raised contentions regarding the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to prospective jurors, alleging pretextual discrimination, which were found to be unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant also argued that an interpreter's allegedly inaccurate translation deprived him of a fair trial, but the court found this contention without merit after inquiry. Furthermore, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence for his robbery convictions. The court found the evidence legally sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Lastly, the conviction for unlawful possession of marihuana was dismissed as academic due to operation of law.

Robbery First DegreeUnlawful Possession MarihuanaPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeJury SelectionInterpreter AccuracyLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure
References
21
Case No. 04-19-00737-CR, 04-19-00738-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2022

Aidan Vitela v. the State of Texas

Aidan Vitela appealed his convictions for criminally negligent homicide and aggravated assault stemming from a fatal car crash. He challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress 'black box' event data recorder evidence, the admission of the State's expert testimony, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence for criminally negligent homicide. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that Vitela lacked standing to challenge the black box evidence due to abandonment of his vehicle and upheld the admissibility of expert testimony. It further concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction and that any prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments was effectively cured by the trial court's instructions.

Criminal Negligent HomicideAggravated AssaultFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressBlack Box EvidenceExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardLegal SufficiencyProsecutorial MisconductJury Instruction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emenhiser v. State

The appellant, John Paul Emenhiser, was convicted of two counts of indecency with a child, one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and one count of sexual performance by a child. He appealed the trial court's judgment, raising points of error regarding a quashed subpoena, the exclusion of a witness who violated the rule of sequestration, the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized from a storage unit, and the denial of a challenge for cause to a veniremember. Additionally, he challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions of sexual performance by a child and indecency with a child. The appellate court reviewed each point of error, found no abuse of discretion by the trial court, and determined that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the convictions, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Indecency with a childSexual performance by a childAggravated sexual assaultSubpoenaExclusion of witnessRule of sequestrationSearch warrantProbable causeMotion to suppressVeniremember challenge
References
35
Case No. 13-03-229-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2006

Perry Lee Wooten v. State

Perry Lee Wooten, former Constable of Harris County Precinct 7, appealed his conviction for theft by a public servant, an offense involving over $20,000 but less than $100,000. The jury assessed punishment at five years confinement and a $1 fine. Wooten raised multiple issues on appeal, including challenges to Batson rulings, allegations of jury misconduct, limitations on final argument time, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas reviewed the claims, finding no clear error in the Batson challenges or the trial court's handling of jury misconduct and argument time. The court also concluded that the evidence, including corroboration of accomplice testimony, was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Theft by Public ServantBatson ChallengeJury MisconductClosing Argument LimitsLegal SufficiencyAccomplice TestimonyTexas Court of AppealsCriminal ConvictionHarris CountyEqual Protection
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Moore

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of reckless assault of an 11-month-old child, who suffered a traumatic brain injury. The defendant admitted to shaking the child, leading to charges and conviction. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of severance motions, argued that his statement to police was involuntary and should have been electronically recorded, and contested the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding no grounds for severance, no duress in the defendant's statement, and no legal requirement for electronic recording. The court also concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient and the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion, given the heinous nature of the crime and the defendant's violent history.

Reckless assaultChild assaultChild abuseTraumatic brain injuryCriminal appealSeverance motionPolice statement admissibilityElectronic recording of confessionsSufficiency of evidenceSentencing review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 12,491 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