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. 03-05-00810-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Anthony L. Martin, A/K/A Anthoney Levane Martin v. State

Anthony L. Martin challenges the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting a trial court's judgment finding him jointly and severally liable for expenses and administrative fees incurred by the State of Texas in cleaning up an abandoned salt water disposal facility. Martin was held liable as an officer of the defunct Texas corporation, Pathfinder Capital, L.C., which was responsible for the cleanup. Martin argues that he was not an officer at the time the State incurred expenses and that documentary evidence of cleanup costs should have been excluded because it consisted of summaries offered without complying with the requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence 1006. The State responds with controverting evidence of his officer status, citing exhibits signed by Martin, and argues the damage evidence was admissible as public records under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8). The court overrules Martin's points of error, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the implicit finding that Martin was a Pathfinder officer and that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the cleanup cost documents as public records. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TexasAppeals CourtCorporate Officer LiabilityEnvironmental CleanupTax Code ViolationEvidence AdmissibilityPublic RecordsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyForfeited Corporate Privileges
References
17
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 04-11-00402-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

City of San Antonio, and Its Agent, San Antonio Water System v. Albert Kevin Martin, A/K/A Kevin Martin

Albert Kevin Martin filed a whistleblower action against his former employer, San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and the City of San Antonio, alleging constructive discharge after reporting asbestos pipe disposal concerns to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A jury initially found in Martin's favor, but SAWS appealed, disputing the causal link between Martin's report and his constructive discharge, and challenging the compensatory damages award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of causation, concluding that SAWS's adverse actions were linked to Martin's whistleblowing, despite SAWS's alternative explanations. However, the court determined there was legally insufficient evidence to support the jury's award for past and future compensatory damages, particularly regarding mental anguish and chest pains, as the evidence presented did not meet the required legal standards for establishing such damages. Consequently, the appellate judgment was "AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED," deleting all references to compensatory damages from the trial court's judgment.

WhistleblowerConstructive DischargeRetaliationAsbestosEnvironmental ComplaintTCEQCausationCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal Sufficiency
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2012

Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc., and Loya Insurance Company v. Martin W. Cohen, Martin W. Cohen & Co., and Nehoc Advisors, Inc.

This case involves a double appeal concerning competing motions for summary judgment between Fred Loya Insurance Agency, Inc. and Loya Insurance Company (collectively 'Loya') and Martin W. Cohen, Martin W. Cohen & Company, and Nehoc Advisors, Inc. (collectively 'Cohen'). Loya challenged the summary judgment granted to Cohen on Loya's breach of fiduciary duty claim and the award of attorney's fees. Cohen cross-appealed orders striking an affidavit, granting Loya's summary judgment motions, and denying Cohen's motion to reconsider. The core dispute revolved around a verbal 1% Agreement for accounting and lobbying services, its terminability at will, and related claims of breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent inducement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the termination of the 1% Agreement at will and rejecting Loya's breach of fiduciary duty claim and Cohen's fraudulent inducement claim, while also affirming the award of attorney's fees based on intertwined claims.

Contract LawSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent InducementAttorney's FeesAt-Will ContractAgency RelationshipIndependent ContractorContract TerminationAppellate Review
References
60
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05204
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

People v. Martin

David Martin was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree after a jury trial. On appeal, Martin challenged his convictions, arguing violations of the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and contesting the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court found that Martin lacked standing to assert facial and as-applied challenges to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), and his arguments failed on the merits. It also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate New York's entire licensing scheme or the permissive presumption under Penal Law § 265.15 (4). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The denial of Martin's CPL 30.30 motion was also deemed proper.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond DegreeAssault Third DegreeSecond Amendment ChallengeStandingAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengePenal Law § 265.03Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of Evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.

Appellant Joyce Martin sued Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (CPL) for wrongful termination, alleging she was fired for leaving work early to vote. The trial court dismissed her case, and Martin appealed. The appellate court first addressed Martin's standing to sue, concluding that despite filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she retained standing as her claim revested in her upon the confirmation of her bankruptcy plan. On the merits, Martin argued for a new common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, citing Texas public policy and the Texas Election Code. However, the appellate court declined to create such an exception, emphasizing the legislature's role in defining exceptions to the at-will doctrine and noting that Martin's pleadings did not definitively show a violation of the Election Code. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.

wrongful terminationemployment at willright to voteTexas Election Codepublic policy exceptionChapter 13 bankruptcystandingappellate reviewcase dismissalemployer retaliation
References
42
Case No. 11-18-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Garrett Martin v. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd.

Garrett Martin appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. Martin sought damages for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging he was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim. Martin sustained a back injury at work and filed a claim two days before his termination. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. argued that Martin was terminated due to unsafe work practices, inability to follow instructions, and untruthfulness regarding the incident. The court reviewed the summary judgment, finding Martin failed to produce sufficient circumstantial evidence for a causal link between his termination and the workers’ compensation claim, and did not rebut Fasken’s non-retaliatory explanation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActCausationCircumstantial EvidenceNo-Evidence MotionEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Martin

Rory Dell Martin, an unskilled laborer, injured his left shoulder while working as a porter in October 1989. His employer initially denied it was an on-the-job injury, but Martin later sought medical treatment from Dr. Pablo Xiques. Service Lloyds Insurance Company, the carrier, appealed a judgment in favor of Martin, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for the injury and permanent partial incapacity. The carrier also claimed the trial court erred in excluding evidence related to Martin's credibility and prior injury claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of permanent partial disability due to an on-the-job injury.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryPermanent Partial IncapacityFactual SufficiencyExclusion of EvidenceCredibilityPreexisting InjurySecondary GainPrior ClaimsMedical Testimony
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TIC Energy & Chemical, Inc. v. Martin

Kevin Martin, an employee, sued subcontractor TIC Energy & Chemical, Inc. for negligence after a workplace injury, having already recovered workers' compensation benefits. TIC invoked the exclusive-remedy defense, arguing it was a deemed fellow employee of Martin under Labor Code section 406.123 due to the general contractor, Union Carbide, providing workers' compensation insurance to TIC. Martin contended section 406.122(b) applied, which excludes subcontractors as general contractors' employees under certain conditions. The Texas Supreme Court reconciled the statutes, holding section 406.122(b) is a general rule and section 406.123 is a permissive exception. Finding that Union Carbide was TIC's statutory employer under section 406.123, the Court determined TIC was Martin's co-employee, thus entitled to the exclusive-remedy defense. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of TIC.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityStatutory EmployerIndependent Contractor StatusLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace InjuryTexas Supreme Court
References
18
Case No. E2015-01466-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 27, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2016

Paul M. Martin v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc.

Paul M. Martin sued his former employer, Perma-Chink Systems, Inc., for age discrimination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) after being terminated at age 60. The jury found in favor of Martin, awarding $132,040 in damages. Perma-Chink appealed, challenging the admissibility of evidence and the denial of their motions for directed verdict, new trial, and remittitur. Martin cross-appealed regarding additional attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the age discrimination judgment but identified an error in the damage calculation, remanding the case for a $20,219.05 remittitur to account for Martin's post-termination earnings and for the determination of his appellate attorney's fees.

Age discriminationTennessee Human Rights ActTHRAunlawful terminationemployment lawsales representativejury verdictappellate reviewremittiturback pay
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 424 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