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. 04-94-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1996

Matter of Mrr

Appellant M.R.R., Jr., a juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing capital murder and received a forty-year determinate sentence. The appellant appealed, alleging the trial court failed to provide the mandatory admonitions required by TEX.FAM.CODE ANN., Sec. 54.03(b) at the adjudication hearing. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, sustained the appellant's point of error, holding that the omission of these admonitions constituted fundamental, reversible error that could not be waived by lack of objection or deemed harmless. The court rejected the State's arguments to abandon the fundamental error doctrine or apply a harmless error analysis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

Juvenile LawDelinquent ConductCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAdmonitionsReversible ErrorAppellate Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Total Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Garcia

Jose Alejo Garcia, a Texas resident, was killed in an industrial accident in Oklahoma while working for Total Oilfield Services, a Texas corporation. His survivors received worker's compensation benefits under Oklahoma law and subsequently sued in Texas for exemplary damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act. The trial court dismissed the action due to Oklahoma's exclusive remedy, but the court of appeals reversed, asserting the extra-territorial effect of the Texas Wrongful Death Act. This court refused the application for writ of error, finding no reversible error in the outcome. However, it disapproved the court of appeals' reasoning that the 'most significant relationship' rule was inapplicable, clarifying that said rule should be applied in such conflict of laws cases.

Wrongful Death ActConflict of LawsMost Significant Relationship TestWorker's CompensationExtra-territorial EffectWrit of ErrorExemplary DamagesSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPer Curiam
References
3
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. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. 06-14-00115-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2015

Cordero Brown v. State

Cordero Brown appeals his aggravated robbery conviction and sixty-year sentence from the 124th District Court, Gregg County, Texas. Brown argues five issues: Batson challenges to jury strikes, legal insufficiency of evidence for conviction, reversible error in denying an alibi instruction, reversible error in allowing a photo of him with a gun, and reversible error in allowing an undisclosed 911 audio. The State's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, including Brown's participation in selling stolen jewelry and inconsistent witness timings. Brown maintains his innocence, providing an alibi and claiming he was unaware the jewelry was stolen.

Aggravated RobberySufficiency of EvidenceBatson ChallengeAlibi DefenseEvidentiary ErrorUndisclosed EvidenceJury InstructionsCriminal AppealPeremptory StrikesTrial Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sorbello

This case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of felony murder and robbery. The primary issue on appeal is the application of CPL 240.75, which allows for harmless error analysis in cases of Rosario rule violations, replacing the previous per se reversal rule. The court determined that CPL 240.75 applies retroactively to all appeals heard after its effective date. Finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure of Rosario material materially contributed to the trial's outcome, the court deemed the error harmless. Additionally, the judgment was modified to mandate concurrent sentences for the murder and robbery convictions, as the robbery served as the predicate felony for the murder charge.

Criminal Procedure LawRosario RuleHarmless Error AnalysisStatutory RetroactivityFelony MurderRobbery Second DegreeSentence ConcurrencyAppellate Division DecisionDiscovery Rule ViolationWitness Impeachment
References
41
Case No. 11-06-00146-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Oscar Pena De La Paz v. State of Texas

Oscar Pena De La Paz was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of injury to a child. His conviction was initially affirmed but then reversed and remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals for a harm analysis regarding erroneously admitted hospital records. These records contained statements from the child victim to a social worker and nurse, implicating De La Paz. On remand, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that despite the error in admitting the records, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the State's overall case, De La Paz's suspicious behavior, and his questionable credibility. The court also rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewHarm AnalysisConfrontation ClauseChild AbuseSexual AssaultIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidence AdmissibilityTexas Court of AppealsRemand
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

Karabinas v. Colvin

Dimitrios N. Karabinas challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his Disability Insurance Benefits application, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed several legal errors. The court identified flaws in the ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment, including failure to accommodate Karabinas's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence, and pace, and an incomplete function-by-function analysis of his work abilities. Furthermore, the court found the ALJ improperly weighed medical opinions, specifically downplaying the detailed report from Karabinas's chiropractor, and based its credibility determination on a circular logic. Concluding that the ALJ's errors led to an unsupported denial of benefits, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's decision. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating and providing benefits to Karabinas for the specified period.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActRFC AssessmentMedical OpinionCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertCervical Disc ProblemsPain ManagementChiropractic TreatmentWork Limitations
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re M.R.R.

The appellant, a juvenile, was charged with capital murder and received a 40-year sentence. The appeal stemmed from the trial court's failure to provide mandatory admonitions under Tex.Fam.Code Ann., Sec. 54.03(b) during the adjudication hearing. Despite the State conceding the error, it argued for harmless error or abandonment of the fundamental error doctrine. The appellate court reaffirmed its precedent, ruling that the omission of these admonitions constitutes fundamental, reversible error that cannot be cured. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Juvenile DelinquencyCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessStatutory AdmonishmentsReversible ErrorTexas Family CodeAppellate ProcedureJuvenile Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. Smith

The Smiths were injured in a 1994 automobile collision with Deputy Sheriff Spurgeon. A jury found Spurgeon's negligence caused the injuries and awarded the Smiths $95,100 in damages. Harris County appealed, challenging the inclusion of 'loss of earning capacity' for Lynn Smith and 'physical impairment' for Erica Smith in the broad-form damages question, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred in submitting these specific elements due to lack of evidence. However, it concluded that traditional harm analysis, rather than the 'presumed harm' standard from Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel, applied to erroneously submitted elements of a broad-form damages question. Applying traditional harm analysis, the court found sufficient evidence to support the overall damages awarded to Lynn Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, and to Erica Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, rendering the errors in submitting the unsupported elements non-reversible. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

NegligenceDamagesJury VerdictBroad-form QuestionsHarm AnalysisPhysical ImpairmentLoss of Earning CapacityMedical CareCausationPre-existing Condition
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 11,274 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