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

In re Whitney Z.

Respondent, a juvenile delinquent, was placed on probation but later admitted to violating its terms, leading to her placement in the custody of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. She appealed the order, and the appellate court first rejected the petitioner's claim of abandonment. On the merits, the court agreed with the respondent that the probation violation petition was jurisdictionally defective. The petition, filed by a probation officer based on hearsay, lacked nonhearsay allegations and supporting affidavits. The court ruled that the absence of nonhearsay affidavits constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect, even if the respondent admitted to the violation, and therefore reversed the lower court's order and dismissed the petition.

Juvenile DelinquencyProbation ViolationJurisdictional DefectNonhearsay AllegationsAffidavitFamily Court ActAppealCustodyDue ProcessReversed
References
1
Case No. M2002-00488-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

State of Tennessee v. Glenda Ponder

Glenda Ponder appealed the DeKalb County Criminal Court's revocation of her probationary sentence and the subsequent order to serve her incarcerative sentence. Ponder was initially convicted of drug charges in 1997 and placed on a four-year probation, which was violated in 1999 for failing to report, leading to a 45-day jail term and transfer to community corrections. In June 2001, another probation violation warrant was issued, alleging violations related to worthless check charges and unpaid probation fees. Ponder admitted to the violations but cited financial hardship and a prior back injury and worker's compensation settlement as contributing factors. The lower court, however, determined she had the means to pay but selectively chose not to, and had been afforded previous opportunities. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given Ponder's admitted violations and prior chances.

Probation RevocationDrug ChargesWorthless ChecksFinancial HardshipWorker's CompensationJudicial DiscretionCriminal AppealAppellate ReviewSentencingTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

United States v. Bp Products North America Inc.

BP Products North America, Inc. pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the federal Clean Air Act following a March 23, 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery that resulted in 15 fatalities and numerous injuries. The plea agreement stipulated a $50 million fine and three years of probation, contingent upon compliance with existing Settlement Agreements with OSHA and Agreed Orders with TCEQ. Victims of the explosion raised objections, arguing the fine was insufficient and probation terms were too lenient, additionally citing a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The court, presided over by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, extensively reviewed arguments and evidence regarding the fine's calculation based on pecuniary gain, the complexities of proving losses, and the adequacy of probation monitoring. Despite an acknowledged CVRA violation, the court found the plea to be a reasonable disposition, considering the legal framework, litigation risks, and the substantial civil and regulatory penalties already incurred by BP Products. The court ultimately accepted the proposed plea agreement.

Clean Air Act ViolationEnvironmental RegulationIndustrial SafetyProcess Safety Management (PSM)Risk Management Plan (RMP)Corporate Plea AgreementCriminal SentencingOrganizational FinesProbation MonitoringVictims' Rights
References
102
Case No. 14-02-00289-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Burton, Kevin v. State

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation where Kevin Burton challenged the trial court's decision. Burton was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and faced revocation for failing to comply with terms, including paying fines and performing community service. The appellant argued insufficient evidence for the violations and improper admission of extraneous offense evidence. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's discretion in admitting evidence during the punishment phase. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations and that the extraneous offense evidence was relevant for assessing punishment.

Probation RevocationSufficiency of EvidenceCommunity Service ViolationFailure to Pay FinesExtraneous OffensesAdmissibility of EvidencePunishment HearingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionControlled Substance Possession
References
15
Case No. 07-99-0508-CR; 07-99-0509-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

Becerra, Alfonso, Sr. v. State

Alfonso Becerra, Sr. appealed the revocation of his community supervision for two felony DWI charges. He argued that his supervision terms were suspended during the alleged violations and that the State's motions to revoke lacked sufficient notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the probationary period remained in effect and was not suspended, and that the State's motions provided adequate notice of the alleged violations, which included public intoxication and alcohol consumption. The court emphasized that probation revocation proceedings are administrative, and the burden of proof lies with the State to show a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Becerra's probation.

Revocation of Community SupervisionFelony DWIProbation ViolationSufficiency of NoticeAbuse of DiscretionRetroactive OrdersAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureTexas LawPublic Intoxication
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Gomez

Mr. Gomez, a defendant previously sentenced for cocaine distribution, violated his supervised release due to a relapse into heroin addiction, which he self-reported. The Probation Department failed to secure immediate residential drug treatment, leading to further addiction and a robbery arrest. Despite Sentencing Guidelines recommending imprisonment, the court, acknowledging the Probation Department's inadequacies and Mr. Gomez's impending substantial state prison sentence for the robbery, sentenced him to 'time served' for the supervised release violation. The court lamented the systemic failures in providing adequate drug treatment.

Supervised Release ViolationHeroin AddictionDrug Treatment FailureSentencing DiscretionTime Served SentenceProbation Department LimitationsRobbery OffenseCriminal Justice ReformSubstance Abuse TreatmentFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 1990

In re John B.

The Family Court in New York County affirmed an order from April 23, 1990, directing the appellant's placement in a Title II facility for up to 12 months. This decision followed a finding that the appellant violated the conditions of a previously imposed 12-month sentence of probation by committing acts which, had they been committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of facilitation in the fourth degree. The appellant entered an admission to these acts on March 14, 1990. The Family Court had explicitly advised the appellant of the consequences of probation violation. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the Family Court in ordering placement, noting that a separate dispositional hearing was conducted.

Probation ViolationJuvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacement OrderJudicial DiscretionFacilitation in the Fourth DegreeDispositional HearingAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
1
Case No. 14-15-00285-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

David Ruiz v. State

David Ruiz appealed the revocation of his deferred community supervision and subsequent 20-year sentence for sexual assault of a child. Ruiz argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his attorney failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence related to a head injury and his own history as a sexual abuse victim. The State contended Ruiz committed multiple probation violations, including failing to register as a sex offender and non-compliance with therapy and payments. The trial court, which also considered the motion for new trial, found 12 probation violations and imposed a 20-year sentence. The State of Texas requests the appellate court affirm the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawAppealsSexual Assault of ChildProbation RevocationIneffective Assistance of CounselMitigating EvidenceHead InjurySexual Abuse VictimSentencingTexas Penal Code
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 7,610 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