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. No. 1114-93
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1995

Casarez v. State

This case from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas addresses whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of peremptory challenges based on religion. George Toby Casarez, convicted of aggravated sexual assault, challenged the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes against two Pentecostal veniremembers. Initially, the court ruled that such challenges were unconstitutional, reversing the lower court. However, on rehearing, the court reversed its prior stance, affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment. The final decision held that while race and sex-based peremptory challenges are prohibited, religious-based challenges are permissible because religious affiliation, unlike race or sex, directly relates to a veniremember's beliefs, which can genuinely impact their ability to be fair and impartial jurors. This distinction allows for the preservation of peremptory challenges based on specific beliefs without violating equal protection principles against invidious stereotypes.

Equal ProtectionPeremptory ChallengeJury SelectionReligious DiscriminationFourteenth AmendmentBatson ChallengeTexasCriminal LawAggravated Sexual AssaultVoir Dire
References
54
Case No. 04-21-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2023

Juliann Castro v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Christopher Jones

Juliann Castro appealed a jury verdict and take-nothing judgment in favor of Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Christopher Jones. The case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident where Castro alleged Jones's negligence caused her injuries. Castro challenged four evidentiary rulings related to expert testimony (Dr. Siddiqui, Dr. Gutzman, Dr. Sonnier), the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding of no causation, and the trial court's denial of her motion to equalize peremptory challenges. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the exclusion or limitation of expert testimony, no factual insufficiency in the jury's verdict, and no materially unfair trial regarding the peremptory challenges.

Motor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceProximate CauseEvidentiary RulingsExpert TestimonyCausation OpinionPeremptory ChallengesJury VerdictFactual SufficiencyDirected Verdict
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03532
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2019

People v. Teran

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting Raymond Teran of criminal sale of a controlled substance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was supported by the weight of the evidence, including both personal sales and accessorial liability. The court also upheld the denial of the defendant's Batson application, determining that the prosecutor provided valid race-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges. Additionally, the defendant's Brady arguments regarding disclosure of police witness civil cases were deemed unavailing due to timely and extensive disclosures. A concurring opinion, however, expressed reservations about the plausibility of some race-neutral reasons provided for the peremptory challenges.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesDrug OffensesJury TrialVerdict WeightAccessorial LiabilityBatson ClaimPeremptory ChallengesRacial DiscriminationBrady Violation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bennett

The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment in Kings County, where he was convicted of murder and weapon possession. The appellate court had previously remitted the case to examine the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. While most of the prosecutor's explanations for striking potential jurors were deemed race-neutral, three African-American women were challenged for reasons found to be pretextual and discriminatory. These included disparate treatment regarding attire, a challenge based on a 'liberal' profession without further inquiry, and a challenge to a social worker that lacked a case-specific relation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, citing insufficient race-neutral explanations for the challenges.

Racial DiscriminationPeremptory ChallengesJury SelectionBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ExplanationsPretextual ReasonsDisparate TreatmentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureMurder Second Degree
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King Street Patriots v. Texas Democratic Party

This appellate opinion addresses facial challenges to the constitutionality of various provisions within the Texas Election Code, brought by the King Street Patriots and individual appellants against the Texas Democratic Party and its officials. The appellants argued that sections pertaining to private rights of action, corporate contributions, and political committee definitions violated their First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the Texas Democratic Party, upholding the constitutionality of numerous provisions and declining jurisdiction over others. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the challenged Election Code provisions were facially constitutional and concurring with the jurisdictional decisions regarding issues like officeholder definitions and criminal penalties. The court emphasized its adherence to the facial challenge framework, declining to expand prior holdings or consider as-applied challenges.

Election LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPolitical ContributionsCampaign FinancePolitical Committees
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campos

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting her of murder in the second degree. The appeal challenged the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to two black prospective jurors during jury selection, arguing Batson violations. The appellate court found the prosecutor's explanations for these challenges pretextual, as they were not sufficiently related to the facts of the case. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered based on the Batson challenges. The Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress statements to law enforcement authorities was affirmed, finding the statements voluntary.

Batson ChallengePeremptory ChallengesJury SelectionCriminal AppealMurder Second DegreeSuppression MotionVoluntary StatementsPretextual ExplanationsRacial DiscriminationNew Trial Ordered
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galvan v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This workers' compensation appeal originated from a take-nothing judgment, where the jury found that Mario Galvan did not sustain an injury during his employment. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to overrule a for-cause challenge against a juror who expressed bias against chiropractor testimony as sole medical evidence. This led the appellant to use a peremptory challenge, which he argued prevented him from removing another juror. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error as the serving juror showed no bias and the unanimous verdict indicated no harm, as five unchallenged jurors could have rendered the same decision.

Jury SelectionJuror BiasPeremptory ChallengeChallenge for CauseVoir DireHarmless ErrorAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceChiropractic Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Smith

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The appeal concerned the prosecutor's peremptory challenges during jury selection. The trial court found a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, specifically noting the prosecutor's inability to provide a race-neutral reason for one challenge and finding another pretextual. The appellate court focused on the prosecutor's challenge of a prospective juror based solely on his employment as a postal worker, ruling that such a reason must relate to the case facts or the juror's qualifications. Finding this explanation pretextual, the appellate court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.

Jury SelectionPeremptory ChallengeBatson ChallengeRace-Neutral ReasonEmployment-Based ChallengePretextual ExplanationRacial DiscriminationCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew TrialAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halprin v. State

Appellant, one of the "Texas Seven" prison escapees, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of a police officer during a robbery and sentenced to death. On appeal, he raised nineteen points of error, including claims that the trial court improperly excluded mitigating evidence, erroneously denied challenges for cause to veniremembers, and allowed improper commitment questions during voir dire. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the exclusion of mitigating evidence was not an abuse of discretion as it was hearsay and cumulative. The court also determined that any error in denying challenges for cause or permitting certain voir dire questions was harmless, as the appellant still had peremptory challenges available and the questions were not improper commitment questions.

Capital MurderPrison EscapeRobberyMitigating EvidenceHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionVoir DirePeremptory ChallengesCommitment QuestionsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 5,243 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