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. 01-19-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. v. Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc.

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. (appellants) appealed a final judgment in favor of Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc. (appellee), following a jury verdict on damages and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from an Asset Purchase Agreement where Analytical acquired Laboratories' assets, with McKinley holding 40% of Analytical's shares. Appellants initially sued Analytical and Botts for various claims, later nonsuiting them, leading to Analytical pursuing counterclaims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. The jury found that McKinley and Laboratories failed to comply with the Agreement, awarding Analytical damages for various 'Excluded Liabilities' and product-related issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards and rejecting appellants' arguments regarding fraudulent inducement and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractAsset Purchase AgreementJury VerdictDamages AwardAttorney FeesSufficiency of EvidenceExcluded LiabilitiesProduct Documentation IssuesProduct Design DefectsFailure to Disclose
References
21
Case No. W2001-02647-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

Jacqueline McKinley v. Samuel Simha

Patient Jacqueline McKinley brought a medical malpractice action against physician Samuel Simha, M.D., and Health First Medical Group, alleging complications, including an injury to her right ureter, arose from a total abdominal hysterectomy. The jury found in favor of McKinley, awarding $300,000. The defendants appealed, raising issues regarding the denial of their motion for a directed verdict, the admissibility of expert testimony, the trial judge's duty as a "thirteenth juror," and the award of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the directed verdict motion and its judgment on the jury verdict, but reversed the award of prejudgment interest.

Medical MalpracticeHysterectomy ComplicationsUreter InjuryChronic ConstipationExpert Witness TestimonyDirected VerdictJury DeliberationPrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
27
Case No. 05-14-00270-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

MacK McKinley Ward v. State

Mack McKinley Ward appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery in Dallas County, Texas. He challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding

Aggravated RobberySerious Bodily InjurySufficiency of EvidenceJury ChargeMental StateReasonable Doubt InstructionGood Conduct Time InstructionTrial Court JurisdictionDocket TransferCriminal Appeal
References
25
Case No. 14-0265
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2014

Brandon Darby v. the New York Times Company and James C. McKinley, Jr.

This case involves a defamation lawsuit filed by Brandon Darby against The New York Times Company and journalist James C. McKinley, Jr. Darby, an FBI informant, alleged he was defamed by an article published on February 22, 2011, and later modified on March 16, 2011, which claimed he had encouraged a Molotov cocktail plot he reported. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a 2-1 split, primarily on the issue of actual malice. Darby now seeks review by the Supreme Court of Texas, arguing that the lower courts erred by not finding a fact question on actual malice. He cites evidence of the defendants' alleged reckless disregard for truth, including their failure to investigate contradictory information and insufficient summary judgment affidavits.

DefamationPublic FigureActual MaliceSummary JudgmentReckless DisregardFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPetitioner's BriefCourt of Appeals ReviewSupreme Court of Texas
References
134
Case No. 2:12-cv-271
Regular Panel Decision

Mt. McKinley Insurance v. Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec LTEE

ASARCO and its subsidiaries (including ASARCO LLC) initially sued insurance companies like Mt. McKinley in 2001 over asbestos-related claims, settling the dispute in 2003 for $12 million. Following their bankruptcy filings in 2005, ASARCO LLC and its subsidiaries initiated adversary actions in 2007 to nullify the 2003 settlement, alleging fraudulent transfer. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently denied Mt. McKinley's motion to dismiss these adversary claims. Mt. McKinley then sought an interlocutory appeal to the District Court, contending that all creditors had been fully compensated and that the state court's judgment warranted full faith and credit. The District Court, presided over by Judge Hanen, denied the interlocutory appeal, indicating that the claims could not be dismissed summarily given the incomplete record, the Asbestos Trust's potential ongoing need for funding, and allegations of irregularity in the original settlement.

Asbestos claimsFraudulent transferBankruptcyInterlocutory appealMotion to dismissInsurance coverageSettlementAdversary actionFull faith and creditRes judicata
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinley

The case involves a defendant convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and criminal possession of a weapon after stabbing his parents, killing his father, and injuring his mother. The defendant appealed the conviction, primarily asserting an insanity defense and challenging several evidentiary rulings. The court upheld the striking of a psychiatrist's testimony due to the doctor's unfamiliarity with the New York legal standard for criminal responsibility. Additionally, the court found no error in excluding a therapist's testimony as an expert or certain forensic mental health file contents, nor in excluding an outdated psychiatric diagnosis from 1970. The judgment was unanimously affirmed, citing overwhelming evidence of guilt and harmless error even if certain testimony had been admitted.

Criminal ResponsibilityInsanity DefensePsychiatric TestimonyEvidentiary RulingsHearsayExpert Witness QualificationParanoid SchizophreniaSchizoid Personality DisorderCriminal Possession of WeaponMurder Second Degree
References
16
Case No. ADJ7460656
Significant
Jan 15, 2013

Dennis McKinley vs. Arizona Cardinals, The Travelers Indemnity Company

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that it will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a cumulative injury claim when a reasonable mandatory forum selection clause in an employment contract specifies another state's forum, and the employee's connection to California is limited.

En banc decisionForum selection clauseCumulative injuryProfessional football playerArizona CardinalsLimited connection to CaliforniaEmployment contractIndustrial Commission of ArizonaPublic policyUnreasonable forum
References
60
Case No. ADJ7460656
En Banc
Jan 15, 2013

DENNIS MCKINLEY vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, declining to exercise jurisdiction over a cumulative injury claim due to a reasonable mandatory forum selection clause in the employment contract specifying Arizona as the forum, coupled with the applicant's limited connection to California.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCCUMULATIVE INJURYPROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERARIZONA CARDINALSTRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANYFORUM SELECTION CLAUSEMANDATORY FORUMLIMITED CONNECTIONEMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
References
61
Case No. FRE 192364, FRE 192365, FRE 198592
Regular
Sep 21, 2007

CAROL MCKINLEY vs. RAMALLAH, INC./GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs following a successful defense against a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board reviewed the itemized hours and requested rate, disallowing time spent on specific tasks deemed clerical or administrative. Ultimately, the Board awarded $\$ 2,100.00$ in attorney's fees and $\$ 49.45$ in costs, recognizing the applicant's attorney's experience and the outcome of the appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Certified Workers' Compensation SpecialistHourly RateCosts on Appeal
References
4
Case No. ADJ3213893 (AHM 0133460)
Regular
Sep 30, 2013

JOHN WIRTZ vs. MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) challenging a WCJ's order to pay $424.40 for a deposition. SCIF argued their due process rights were violated as their objection to the costs was seemingly not considered before the order was issued. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision was based on the finding that SCIF was denied its due process right to be heard regarding the costs.

Labor Code Section 5811Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderDue Process DenialDeposition CostsDholakia & AssociatesIke Kerhulas Ph.D.Interim OrderFinal OrderRight to be Heard
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14 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