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
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruns v. State

The appellant, Donald Bruns, appealed his conviction for misdemeanor theft, initially charged as felony theft based on prior forgery convictions. Bruns argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because forgery offenses should not be used to elevate a misdemeanor theft to a felony under Texas Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). The appellate court reviewed relevant precedents, confirming that forgery, burglary, and other similar offenses are not considered 'grades of theft' for enhancement purposes. Consequently, the court found that the trial court never acquired felony jurisdiction over the case. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to transfer it to a court possessing misdemeanor jurisdiction.

TheftFelony enhancementMisdemeanor jurisdictionForgery as prior convictionStatutory interpretationJurisdictional challengeIndictment quashalAppellate reviewCriminal procedurePecuniary loss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gracia v. City of Killeen

Arturo Gracia, a police officer for the City of Killeen, Texas, was suspended without pay after an arrest warrant was issued for a Class A misdemeanor. He challenged the suspension, arguing that he was not “officially charged” under section 143.056 of the Texas Local Government Code until an information was filed against him in court, 32 days after his arrest. The trial court sided with the City, but the appellate court reversed, holding that “officially charged” for a misdemeanor under the statute means the filing of an information in court. Consequently, the City was required to reimburse Gracia for compensation withheld prior to the information's filing. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding costs and attorneys’ fees.

Police Officer SuspensionClass A MisdemeanorClass B MisdemeanorLocal Government CodeOfficial Charge DefinitionArrest WarrantInformation FilingDeclaratory ReliefTemporary SuspensionUnpaid Suspension
References
7
Case No. 03-08-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2009

Arturo Gracia v. City of Killeen, Texas

Arturo Gracia, a Killeen police officer, was suspended without pay after an arrest warrant for a Class A misdemeanor. He sued the City of Killeen, contending that his suspension under Texas Local Government Code section 143.056 was unlawful until a formal information was filed, which occurred 32 days post-arrest. The trial court ruled for the City, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appeals court clarified that "officially charged" for a misdemeanor under the statute requires the filing of an information, not just an arrest warrant. Consequently, Gracia was entitled to compensation for the period prior to the information's filing, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on costs and attorney's fees.

Police Officer SuspensionLocal Government CodeClass A MisdemeanorOfficial Charge DefinitionArrest WarrantInformation FilingTemporary SuspensionPay WithholdingDeclaratory ReliefSummary Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quarles v. State

Appellant, Morrison, a lawyer from Houston, was convicted of barratry and sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. The conviction stemmed from his actions in October 1963, following a refinery explosion in Corpus Christi. Morrison, accompanied by a co-indictee, traveled to Corpus Christi and visited the families of victims, falsely identifying themselves as attorneys from Houston and offering legal representation on a contingent fee basis, while criticizing local lawyers. He also displayed newspaper clippings of past successes. Despite not securing any contracts, he was indicted by a grand jury in Nueces County for the misdemeanor offense of barratry. Morrison represented himself in the trial and appeal, challenging the constitutionality of the barratry statute and the grand jury indictment for a misdemeanor. The court affirmed the conviction, finding ample evidence and no reversible error.

barratrysolicitationcontingent feeattorney misconductcriminal misdemeanorgrand jury indictmentconstitutional challengeappellate reviewevidence admissibilityTexas law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perico

This case addresses the defendants' Perico and Andriano's motion to dismiss an information. The defendants argued that the prosecution for Workers' Compensation Law §§ 50 and 52 violations was untimely, having been filed two years and two days after the alleged misdemeanor, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. They also contended the information was insufficient due to the absence of certified Workers' Compensation Board awards. The People opposed, arguing the statute of limitations defense was waived for not being raised within pretrial motion deadlines. The court held that the Statute of Limitations defense is a jurisdictional right, waivable only at trial or upon a guilty plea, not automatically by CPL 255.20's time limits. Furthermore, the court found the information fatally defective due to the lack of prima facie evidence. Consequently, the information against both defendants was dismissed.

Criminal ProcedureStatute of LimitationsDismissalAccusatory InstrumentInformation InsufficiencyWaiverJurisdictional RightMisdemeanorPretrial MotionsPlea of Guilty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. FRE 218718 FRE 215344 FRE 215345
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

SHAEANN YOUNG vs. SAVE MART, permissibly self-insured and administered by PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Shaeann Young, finding that her nolo contendere plea to misdemeanor insurance fraud did not bar her from receiving benefits. The Board determined that Young had sustained actual industrial injuries, that the awarded compensation was supported by substantial medical evidence unrelated to the fraud, and that her credibility was not entirely destroyed. Consequently, Young remains entitled to the temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment benefits.

nolo contendereinsurance fraudcompensable industrial injurymedical treatmenttemporary disability indemnitypermanent disability indemnityTensfeldtGarzaworkers' compensation administrative law judgepanel qualified medical evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Kavanagh

The petitioner sought review of the respondent's decision to revoke his pistol permit after he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor insurance fraud. This guilty plea followed a Workers' Compensation Board determination that he made false statements while collecting benefits. The court upheld the revocation, finding that the respondent's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, as the petitioner's guilty plea demonstrated a lack of good moral character. The court also rejected the petitioner's Second Amendment claim, reiterating that the right to bear arms is not conferred without a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia.

Pistol permit revocationInsurance fraudMisdemeanor convictionWorkers' compensation benefitsGood moral characterSecond Amendment rightsJudicial reviewAdministrative discretionCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. ADJ6641753
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

JESSIE BURKE vs. AP EXPRESS WORLDWIDE LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a finding regarding intoxication. While the initial judge found the applicant sustained an industrial injury, the defendant contested this, arguing the applicant's DUI plea barred recovery under Labor Code section 3600(a)(4). The Board affirmed the industrial injury finding but amended the specific finding to state the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing intoxication as a proximate cause. The Board gave significant weight to the trial judge's credibility determination and the applicant's argument that a nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor is not an admission in civil cases.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(4)nolo contenderePenal Code section 1016.3proximate causeintoxicationburden of proofsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationindustrial injuryState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 42 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