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. E2004-01216-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision

State v. David H.

The dissenting opinion by Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr. addresses the denial of appointed counsel in dependent and neglect proceedings involving parents David H. and Mary Ellen H. While concurring with the majority's legal principles on the right to counsel, the dissent argues that the parents' irresponsible actions and omissions justified the trial court's decisions to deny appointed counsel. The trial court, presided over by Judge Harris and Judge Davies, found the parents not indigent based on their income and lack of diligence in seeking legal representation. The dissenting judge concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and would have affirmed its decisions to deny the requests for appointed counsel.

dependent neglectindigencyright to counselaffidavit of indigencyabuse of discretionchild support obligationappellate reviewtrial court discretionprocedural due processattorney appointment
References
6
Case No. 620/89
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

People v. Brunskill

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant argued that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel due to various alleged failures of his trial attorney. The court reviewed the trial tactics, noting that counsel called alibi witnesses and cross-examined prosecution witnesses. The court found that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, concluding that unsuccessful tactics do not automatically indicate ineffectiveness. The judgment was affirmed, and the aggregate maximum term of imprisonment was deemed 30 years and the minimum 15 years, in accordance with Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (c) (i).

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesIneffective Assistance of CounselAlibi DefenseAppellate ReviewSentencing GuidelinesTrial TacticsCriminal ProcedureJury VerdictJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Dilleshaw

This workmen's compensation case involved an appeal based on the trial court's refusal to order an additional medical examination and alleged misconduct by appellee's counsel during jury argument. The applicant, C. D. Dilleshaw, suffered sulphuric acid burns, with medical testimony from Dr. Zionts detailing recurring sores, countered by Dr. Lewis who observed no such issues. The appellate court found error in the trial court's overruling of an objection to appellee's counsel informing the jury of the legal effect of their answers, combined with inflammatory arguments appealing to sympathy and attacking opposing counsel. This misconduct was deemed to have probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Workmen's CompensationMedical ExaminationJury MisconductImproper Jury ArgumentReversalRemandSulphuric Acid BurnsSpecial IssuesAttorney MisconductPrejudice
References
11
Case No. E2008-02146-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2011

Dennis Wade Suttles v. State of Tennessee

Dennis Wade Suttles appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief in a case where he was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The appeal challenges the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel, as well as the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Suttles received effective assistance of counsel and that his challenges to the death penalty were without merit. The original conviction stemmed from the 1996 murder of his estranged girlfriend, Gail Rhodes, in front of her daughter, after which he was sentenced to death based on two aggravating circumstances.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselPost-Conviction ReliefPremeditated MurderDeath PenaltyMental StateNeuropsychological EvaluationSentencingMitigating EvidenceTrial StrategyExpert Testimony
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Howard S. Wright

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision to reverse a conviction and order a new trial, which was based on the finding that the defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The dissent contends that the defense counsel provided meaningful representation when viewed in totality, despite not objecting to certain prosecutorial statements during summation. The opinion highlights the defense counsel's effective cross-examination of the DNA expert, who conceded limitations in the YSTR DNA evidence, and the jury's acquittals on rape and felony murder charges. The dissent further argues that the prosecutor did not misrepresent the DNA evidence, but rather presented it as one piece of a larger circumstantial case, urging the jury to consider all evidence. It differentiates this case from instances of clear ineffective assistance of counsel, asserting that the alleged single error by defense counsel during summation does not warrant a reversal.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductSummationDNA EvidenceYSTR TestingForensic DNACriminal AppealDissenting OpinionMurder Conviction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Assignees of Best Buy v. Combs

This appeal concerns the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by "the Assignees" (consumers who overpaid sales tax on rebated items) against the Texas Comptroller. The Assignees sought tax refunds based on claims assigned to them by retailers (Best Buy, OfficeMax, CompUSA) in prior class-action settlements. Settlement-class counsel had filed aggregated refund claims with the Comptroller, but these were denied on grounds of lack of authority for class counsel to represent individual members in administrative proceedings. The trial court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court held that the trial courts in the initial class actions lacked jurisdiction to appoint class counsel for individual administrative claims, making those appointments void and thus preventing the Assignees from exhausting administrative remedies to waive sovereign immunity.

Sales Tax RefundClass Action SettlementPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityAttorney AppointmentJudicial JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeCivil Procedure Rule 42Collateral Attack
References
34
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1997

Rodriguez v. Hanslmaier

Andres Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge his guilty plea. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck issued a report recommending denial of the petition. The District Court, presided over by Judge John E. Sprizzo, adopted this report and recommendation. The court found that appellate counsel's strategy to challenge only the excessive sentence, rather than the guilty plea, was reasonable given the petitioner's prior agreement and the potential risk of a murder trial with a life sentence if the plea was vacated. The court also noted that the trial judge's decision on the plea's voluntariness and counsel's effectiveness was based on in-court observations and credibility assessments, making an appeal unlikely to succeed. Consequently, Rodriguez's petition was denied with prejudice.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Counsel StrategyGuilty Plea ValidityExcessive Sentence ClaimMental CompetencyMalingering DefenseSixth AmendmentCriminal AppealFederal District Court
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 16,416 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