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

Weaver v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co.

In a workers' compensation suit, the trial court issued a take-nothing judgment against Ray Weaver. Weaver moved for a new trial, alleging improper jury influence, and his request for a court reporter for the motion hearing was denied. The court of appeals affirmed, holding Weaver waived error by not seeking a narrative or agreed statement. The current court, while disapproving the court of appeals' waiver conclusion regarding the denial of a court reporter, ultimately refused Weaver's application for writ of error. The court found that the juror's affidavit supporting the motion for new trial did not demonstrate actual "outside influences" on the jury as required by Tex.R.Civ.P. 327, thus the trial court correctly overruled the motion.

Workers' Compensation LawJury MisconductMotion for New TrialWrit of Error ApplicationCourt Reporter DenialAppellate Review StandardsJuror Affidavit RequirementsTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProcedural ErrorEvidence Sufficiency
References
2
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

Raymo v. Textron, Inc.

Plaintiffs Donald and Barbara Raymo filed post-trial motions seeking a judgment as a matter of law on liability against the defendants, or in the alternative, a new trial. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the jury's verdict was justifiable based on the evidence presented. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was also denied; the court found no reversible error in the jury instructions, determined that evidence regarding a gap in the manure spreader was not improperly excluded, and ruled that the jury's verdict was not influenced by improper outside factors. The court thus upheld the jury's original verdict.

Post-trial motionJudgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionJury instructionEvidentiary exclusionJury misconductOutside influence on juryProduct liabilityNegligenceManure spreader
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1991

Mink v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

A track worker for a defendant railroad sustained a deep vein thrombosis after a work-related slip and fall, leading to permanent disability. The Supreme Court initially awarded the plaintiff $3 million for future pain and suffering. However, the appellate court found this award excessive, noting that speculative expert testimony lacking medical certainty and outside the scope of the bill of particulars likely influenced the jury. The judgment was modified, remanding the case for a new trial on future pain and suffering damages, with the condition that the plaintiff could accept a reduced award of $1 million to affirm the amended judgment.

Personal InjuryFuture Pain and SufferingExcessive DamagesMedical Expert TestimonySpeculative EvidenceBill of ParticularsRemand for New TrialConditional AffirmationDeep Vein ThrombosisRailroad Worker Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Murphy

Chief Judge Weinstein delivered a sentencing opinion for Maureen Murphy, found guilty of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. Murphy, a confidential secretary, facilitated insurance frauds and later tried to impede a grand jury investigation. The court, citing concerns about escalating prison populations and punishment efficacy, opted for an unconventional sentence of home detention and probation, suspending a potential jail term. A $5,000 fine, payable over five years, was also imposed. This decision emphasized rehabilitation outside incarceration, cost-effectiveness of alternative sanctions, and the need for public accountability.

RICO ViolationMail FraudObstruction of JusticeSentencing OpinionHome DetentionProbationAlternative SentencingWhite Collar CrimeCriminal Justice ReformJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. 01-01-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

Christine House v. Ethyl Corporation

Christine House sued Ethyl Corporation for injuries sustained from chemical exposure, alleging negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace and providing defective equipment. A jury found both parties negligent, attributing 70% of the negligence to House and 30% to Ethyl, leading to a take-nothing judgment for House. House appealed, arguing the jury's allocation of negligence was against the great weight of the evidence and that she deserved a new trial due to alleged jury misconduct during deliberations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence apportionment and ruling that the alleged jury misconduct was an internal matter, not an outside influence.

chemical exposurenegligenceworkplace safetyjury misconductfactual sufficiencycomparative negligenceappellate reviewjuror affidavitspersonal injuryTexas law
References
6
Case No. NO. 12-01-00089-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Bryant Moore v. State of Texas

Bryant Moore appealed his seven-year sentence for aggravated assault following a guilty plea. His appeal raised two issues: alleged racially-motivated remarks by the jury foreman and the jury's consideration of parole law during deliberations. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, supported by an affidavit from juror Ginger Elrod. The trial court struck Elrod's affidavit based on Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b) and overruled the motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the alleged jury misconduct did not constitute "outside influences" as defined by legal precedent, but rather originated from within the jury, thereby upholding the exclusion of the juror's testimony.

Aggravated AssaultJury MisconductMotion for New TrialOutside InfluenceJuror TestimonyRule of Evidence 606(b)Appellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCriminal AppealSentencing Appeal
References
11
Case No. ADJ916063 (VNO 0541860)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

TERRY SCUDDER vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant who sustained industrial injuries and pre-designated a physician outside of the employer's established Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant's attorney subsequently referred him to physicians outside the MPN, whose reports were admitted by the WCJ. The Appeals Board overturned this, ruling that only the pre-designated physician, or referrals from that physician, could be outside the MPN and that referrals by an attorney were invalid. Consequently, the reports of these outside physicians were inadmissible, and the issues decided based on them were returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPre-designationTreating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEPermanent and Stationary DateApportionmentSelf-Procured Medical Treatment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson

Ronald Jackson sued Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. for negligence and products liability after being injured by a compound bow. The jury found Golden Eagle defectively marketed the bow but also found Jackson negligent, attributing 45% responsibility to him and awarding approximately $20,000 in damages. Jackson moved for a new trial, alleging juror misconduct and bias, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals's judgment, holding that Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 327(b) and Texas Rules of Civil Evidence 606(b), which generally prohibit jurors from testifying about deliberations unless "outside influence" is involved, are constitutional. The Court clarified that discussions during a trial break are not "deliberations" and thus not barred, but found Jackson's evidence of juror bias inconclusive. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Jackson’s other points of error.

Products LiabilityJuror MisconductJuror BiasNew TrialAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawDue ProcessTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Civil EvidenceOutside Influence Exception
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AT&T Information Systems, Inc. v. Donohue

This case concerns an appeal by AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (petitioner) against the New York State Job Incentive Board's (Board) denial of its application for tax incentives under Commerce Law former article 4-A. The Board, created to alleviate unemployment, offered tax incentives in exchange for enhanced employment opportunities. Petitioner, formed by AT&T in response to FCC deregulation, applied for these incentives for 13 new facilities. The Board denied the applications, stating that the projects did not demonstrate the creation of "net new jobs for New York State." The Supreme Court found that the Board failed to make an independent assessment, was influenced by outside political pressure, and applied an impermissible test by charging job losses from FCC rulings against newly created jobs. Concluding that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and given the Board's abolition, the Supreme Court invoked its inherent authority to reverse the judgment and grant the petition, holding that petitioner was entitled to the credits.

Tax incentivesJob Incentive BoardAdministrative lawJudicial reviewArbitrary and capriciousDiscretionary powerCommerce LawUnemployment alleviationFCC rulingsCorporate divestiture
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 985 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