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. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
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. ADJ1516621 (LBO 0352293)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

Jack Schafer vs. BOB FRINK MANAGEMENT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) and penalties for the defendant's unreasonable delay in providing benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's findings on VRMA and delayed VR benefits. However, the Board deferred the issue of the Labor Code § 5814 penalty, remanding it for a proper explanation and analysis of factors required by precedent. This ensures the WCJ correctly applies the law regarding penalty calculations and amounts.

Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMALabor Code § 4650(d)Labor Code § 5814 penaltyReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardStipulated AwardIndustrial InjuryAutomobile MechanicPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ8762614
Regular
May 04, 2018

MICHAEL RUSSELL vs. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and deferred the issue of the third-party credit in this case. While affirming the finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, the Board found the original calculation of the third-party credit was unclear and did not follow established legal precedent. The case is remanded to the trial level to properly determine the third-party credit consistent with the *Martinez* decision. This will involve a detailed analysis of the fault of the employer, employee, and third party.

Petition for ReconsiderationSerious and Willful MisconductThird Party CreditMartinez v. Associated EngineeringComparative NegligenceEmployer NegligenceEmployee NegligenceApportionment of FaultPermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability
References
2
Case No. ADJ9348178
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

MICHAEL MCKENNA vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the order disqualifying defense counsel, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This action was taken because the original disqualification was issued without an evidentiary record and lacked proper legal analysis under the relevant case law. The Workers' Compensation Judge must now create a record and apply established precedent, like *Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co.*, to the disqualification issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationVicarious DisqualificationEthical WallFinal OrderReconsiderationRemovalWCJEvidentiary RecordConfidential Information
References
8
Case No. M2001-02766-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2005

Jennifer L. Biscan v. Franklin H. Brown - Concurring and Dissenting

Chief Justice Drowota pens a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault case. He agrees with the majority on the exclusion of evidence of Jennifer Biscan's prior alcohol experiences and that Paul Worley owed a duty of care. However, he disagrees with the majority's analysis concerning the apportionment of fault to Dana Biscan, who is effectively immune from liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 (furnishing alcohol). Drowota argues that fault should still be assigned to immune or effectively immune tortfeasors, citing precedents like Carroll v. Whitney and Dotson v. Blake, to uphold the principle of linking liability to fault. He contends that the majority's decision contradicts prior comparative fault jurisprudence and introduces unnecessary confusion.

Comparative FaultApportionment of FaultImmunity from LiabilityStatutory ImmunityTennessee Code Annotated 57-10-101Proximate CauseLinking Liability to FaultJudicial DissentLegal CausationTennessee Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1989

In Re Volpe

This case addresses the objection by NCNB-Texas National Bank to the exemption claimed by Dr. and Mrs. Volpe (Debtors) for their qualified employee profit sharing plan and individual retirement accounts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. NCNB argued that the relevant Texas Property Code (T.P.C. § 42.0021) was preempted by ERISA and that debtors could only exempt a single account. The court, after an extensive analysis of ERISA's preemption clause and Supreme Court precedents like Mackey, concluded that T.P.C. § 42.0021 is not preempted by ERISA, as its connection to ERISA plans is too remote to be considered regulatory. Furthermore, applying a liberal interpretation of Texas exemption laws, the court determined that a debtor's overall retirement plan, even if held in multiple accounts, is exempt. Therefore, NCNB's objection was overruled, and the debtors' accounts were deemed exempt.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimERISA PreemptionTexas Property CodeRetirement BenefitsProfit Sharing PlanIndividual Retirement AccountsFederal Bankruptcy CodeState Exemption LawSpendthrift Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Couch v. Mobil Oil Corporation

Plaintiff Couch, a Texas resident, sued Mobil Oil, a Delaware corporation, in a federal court in Texas based on diversity jurisdiction for injuries sustained in an oil tank explosion in Libya. The plaintiff alleged common law negligence and initially requested a jury trial, later moving to withdraw this request. The court conditionally denied the motion, contingent on all parties' consent, due to a complex conflict of laws issue involving Libyan, Texas, and California laws regarding jury trials and damages. The decision analyzed various legal precedents and public policy considerations, particularly concerning the enforceability of foreign laws obnoxious to Texas policy. Ultimately, the court, applying an interest analysis test, determined that Texas tort law would be applied in the case, which would proceed with a jury impanelled under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38 and 39.

Conflict of LawsChoice of LawJury TrialFederal Civil ProcedureTexas LawLibyan LawPersonal InjuryNegligenceDiversity JurisdictionErie Doctrine
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Horace

This case involves an order to show cause initiated by the New York Attorney-General, Dennis C. Vacco, against John Horace. The Attorney-General sought to compel Horace to provide a blood sample for DNA analysis in connection with a rape investigation and requested that affidavits and exhibits be sealed. John Horace filed a cross-motion for discovery and an adjournment. The court, presided over by Justice Charles J. Siragusa, granted the sealing request only under New York Civil Rights Law § 50-b to protect the victim's identity, Jane Doe, but rejected other grounds. Relying on legal precedents such as *Matter of Abe A.*, the court found probable cause for rape in the first degree and that Horace was the perpetrator, affirming the need for a safe and reliable blood sample. Consequently, the court granted the Attorney-General's application to compel the blood sample and denied Horace's cross-motion.

Rape in the First DegreeCompelled Blood SampleDNA AnalysisProbable Cause StandardVictim Identity ProtectionCivil Rights Law 50-bMedical Examiner TestimonyForensic SerologyHandwriting AnalysisCriminal Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,903 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