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. 01-11-00383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2012

Mikuni Corporation v. Todd Foster and Candy Foster

This is a products liability lawsuit stemming from a motorcycle accident where Todd Foster was injured due to an allegedly defective carburetor. Appellees Todd and Candy Foster initially sued Classic Honda Mini Trails (CHT), which then filed third-party claims against Mikuni Corporation (Mikuni), the Japanese manufacturer of the carburetor. Mikuni appealed the trial court's denial of its special appearance, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas. The appellate court examined both specific and general jurisdiction, including the alter-ego theory between Mikuni and its subsidiary MAC, ultimately concluding that Mikuni had not purposefully availed itself of the Texas market and that MAC's contacts could not be imputed to Mikuni. The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the case against Mikuni for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionProducts LiabilityCorporate VeilAlter EgoMinimum ContactsDue ProcessStream of CommerceTexas Long-Arm StatuteForeign ManufacturerSubsidiary
References
31
Case No. 2015-877 N CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

People v. Todd (Norman)

Defendant Norman Todd was convicted of stalking in the fourth degree. The charges arose from three incidents in 2012 where he made inappropriate comments to a McDonald's employee and accosted her while she walked home. The District Court denied motions to suppress his statement and identification testimony. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was reversed and remitted for a new trial. The Appellate Term found the information and evidence sufficient. However, the court ruled that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling by permitting inquiry into a 27-year-old attempted rape conviction, deeming it unduly prejudicial. Additionally, the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated he could not promise to be impartial due to having a daughter.

Stalking in the Fourth DegreePenal Law § 120.45(1)Sufficiency of InformationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestPhoto Array SuggestivenessSandoval RulingJury SelectionChallenge for Cause
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Todd

Richard Hotze and Robb Todd challenged an executive order (EO 1-8) issued by Houston Mayor Lee P. Brown, which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation for city employees. Hotze, a citizen, argued the order nullified a 1985 voter referendum that had rejected a similar anti-discrimination ordinance. Todd, a city council member, contended the Mayor had overstepped his authority and usurped the council's legislative powers. The trial court found Hotze lacked standing but Todd had it, issuing a temporary injunction. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case, ultimately concluding that neither Hotze nor Todd had sufficient standing to bring the claim. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding Todd's standing, affirmed its judgment on Hotze's lack of standing, and dismissed all claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionExecutive OrdersDiscriminationSexual OrientationCity GovernmentVoter RightsSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
25
Case No. 13-99-019-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2000

Russell Todd Bright v. State

Russell Todd Bright appealed the revocation of his community supervision, contesting the trial court's finding of violations concerning payment terms and the effectiveness of his legal counsel. He argued that there was no evidence he violated terms by failing to pay court costs, that he proved an inability to pay, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer's failure to object to victim impact testimony. The appellate court sustained his argument regarding the vagueness of court costs but found he failed to establish an inability to pay supervisory fees due to a lack of documentation. Furthermore, the court determined that even if counsel's performance was deficient, there was no reasonable probability the outcome would have been different, given other evidence against him. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the revocation of community supervision was affirmed.

Revocation of Community SupervisionIntoxication AssaultInability to PayIneffective Assistance of CounselVictim Impact TestimonyCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAffirmative DefenseProbation Violation
References
35
Case No. 2-04-109-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Tracy Lynn Libby Askew v. Kevin Todd Askew

This is an appeal from a Texas divorce case concerning child custody and community property division. Appellant Tracy Lynn Libby Askew challenged the trial court's decision to appoint Appellee Kevin Todd Askew as the sole managing conservator of their minor child, the denial of a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence regarding paternity, and the equitable division of their community property, specifically corporate stock. The appellant's claims of child abuse against the appellee were investigated and dismissed as unfounded. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's exercise of discretion and the sufficiency of evidence on all issues, including the conservatorship and property division. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings and affirmed its judgment.

DivorceChild CustodySole Managing ConservatorCommunity PropertyAsset DivisionNewly Discovered EvidencePaternityAbuse AllegationsSufficiency of EvidenceGuardian Ad Litem
References
25
Case No. 2718 / 02A01-9708-CV-00197
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Susan Todd/State v. Weakley Co.

Plaintiff Susan K. Todd filed a medical malpractice action against Weakley County and several individual defendants. The trial court dismissed the case against the individual defendants, ruling that certain provisions of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) were unconstitutional for vagueness, equal protection violations, and denying the right to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding on unconstitutionality, determining that the term "health care practitioner" is not vague and that the provisions do not violate equal protection or the right to a jury trial. The Court affirmed the dismissal of nurse's aides Insco and Jennings, as they are not considered "health care practitioners" under the GTLA, but reversed the dismissal of Nina Snyder and David Bradley, a licensed practical nurse and nursing home administrator respectively.

Medical MalpracticeGovernmental Tort Liability ActConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeEqual ProtectionRight to Jury TrialHealth Care PractitionerGovernmental ImmunityNurse's AidesLicensed Practical Nurse
References
36
Case No. 02-21-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Todd Gallaher v. Denton Media Company, Inc. D/B/A Denton Record Chronicle

Appellant Todd Gallaher, a political consultant, sued Appellee Denton Media Company, Inc. d/b/a Denton Record-Chronicle for defamation, alleging libelous statements in a series of articles. The articles detailed allegations of Gallaher's misconduct during the 2008 primary election, claiming he was "charged," "prosecuted," and "sentenced" for misrepresentation of identity. Gallaher also contended defamation regarding statements that he declined to comment for the articles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Newspaper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that some claims were time-barred, statements about charges were protected by the statutory defense of truth for public concern, and statements about declining comment were not defamatory.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code
References
24
Case No. ADJ2112759 (ANA 0406243)
Regular
Feb 22, 2009

Matt Todd vs. INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding that applicant Matt Todd sustained an industrial injury during his commute. The Board determined that Todd's motorcycle accident en route from the Union Hall to the employer's premises was barred by the "going and coming" rule. Todd failed to establish that the trip was an extraordinary mission or that the commute involved a special risk distinct from the general public. Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence that the Union Hall acted as the employer's agent in dispatching Todd.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMotorcycle AccidentCommuteUnion HallCasual LaborerGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission DoctrineSpecial Risk Exception
References
5
Case No. 19-0791, 19-0792
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

in Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Todd Joseph Dauper

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas consolidates two petitions for writ of mandamus concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance claims. Relators State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Terecina Shahan, and Todd Joseph Dauper sought to overturn trial court denials of their motions for bifurcated trials. The underlying suits, brought by real parties in interest Al Dodds and Alexander Nicastro, alleged only extracontractual violations of the Texas Insurance Code, seeking UIM benefits as damages, but did not include breach-of-contract claims. State Farm argued that an insured must first establish legal entitlement to policy benefits by proving the underinsured motorist's liability and damages in an initial "car crash" trial, even if only statutory claims are pleaded. The Court agreed, holding that such a showing is a prerequisite for recovering on Insurance Code claims when damages are predicated on policy benefits. It found that denying bifurcation was an abuse of discretion, citing the need to preserve judicial resources and prevent prejudice from the admission of settlement offers. The Court conditionally granted the petitions, directing the trial courts to bifurcate the trials.

Underinsured Motorist InsuranceInsurance Code ClaimsBifurcation of TrialsWrit of MandamusExtracontractual ClaimsPolicy BenefitsTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTrial AbatementSettlement Offers
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Perez

This document is a dissent from the denial of a petition for review. The core issue revolves around whether an employer's bankruptcy discharge prevents a wrongful death claim brought by former employees' survivors, stemming from pre-petition conduct by the debtor that caused a subsequent death. Guadalupe Garcia, a former employee of Todd Shipyards Corp., developed asbestos-related illnesses and died from mesothelioma after Todd had undergone Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. Garcia's eight daughters filed a wrongful death action against Todd. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Todd, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. Justice Hecht, joined by Justice Owen, dissents from the Court's decision to deny the petition for review, arguing that the legal question is significant, has generated conflicting interpretations in different courts regarding 'claim' definition under the Bankruptcy Code and the nature of derivative wrongful death claims, and thus warrants full oral argument and review.

Bankruptcy dischargewrongful deathasbestos exposurepre-petition conductpost-petition claimChapter 11 reorganizationFifth CircuitTexas ConstitutionLabor CodeMesothelioma
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 92 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