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

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. 01-11-00972-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2013

Tracy Brown v. Janet Kleerekoper

Tracy Brown sued Janet KleereKoper alleging breach of contract, theft of property, and theft of services under the Texas Theft Liability Act. A jury awarded Brown $20 for theft-of-services and $242 for breach-of-contract but found against him on the theft-of-property claim. As a result, KleereKoper was awarded $7,747.14 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the theft-of-property claim. Brown appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the award of attorney's fees to KleereKoper, and the constitutionality of the TTLA's 'loser pay' provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denials, that KleereKoper was a prevailing party, and that the TTLA's fee provisions are constitutional.

Theft of ServicesBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Theft Liability ActConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionOpen Courts Provision
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n

Plaintiff sought to overturn an Industrial Accident Board's denial of workers' compensation for her husband, Albert Richardson, who died after a workplace altercation. Richardson, an employee of Broussard-Warfield Company, was struck and killed by a co-worker, Dave Williams, following an incident involving name-calling and an accusation of theft. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association insured the employer. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the defendant, concluding the injury was not compensable as it stemmed from personal reasons or horseplay initiated by the deceased. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Richardson willingly engaged in and initiated the horseplay by kicking Williams, thereby turning aside from his employment duties, which rendered his injury non-compensable under Texas law.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryHorseplayPersonal QuarrelCourse of EmploymentAggressorTexas LawEmployer LiabilityDeath ClaimAppeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bruns v. State

The appellant, Donald Bruns, appealed his conviction for misdemeanor theft, initially charged as felony theft based on prior forgery convictions. Bruns argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because forgery offenses should not be used to elevate a misdemeanor theft to a felony under Texas Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). The appellate court reviewed relevant precedents, confirming that forgery, burglary, and other similar offenses are not considered 'grades of theft' for enhancement purposes. Consequently, the court found that the trial court never acquired felony jurisdiction over the case. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed, and the cause was remanded with instructions to transfer it to a court possessing misdemeanor jurisdiction.

TheftFelony enhancementMisdemeanor jurisdictionForgery as prior convictionStatutory interpretationJurisdictional challengeIndictment quashalAppellate reviewCriminal procedurePecuniary loss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. State

Rosendo Guzman Ramirez was convicted of burglary of a vehicle after being found on a freight train in El Paso, Texas, along with other individuals. Railroad security officers discovered a broken seal on a trailer where Ramirez and others were apprehended. The State argued that Ramirez's attempt to obtain a free ride constituted theft of service, thereby demonstrating intent to commit theft for the burglary charge. However, the court reversed the conviction, clarifying that a freight train does not provide service for compensation. Therefore, "riding-the-rails" does not fulfill the criteria for theft of service under Texas Penal Code Section 31.04(a), and the intent to commit theft, a necessary element for burglary of a vehicle under Section 30.04, was not proven. The case was remanded for entry of a judgment of not guilty.

Texas Penal CodeBurglary of VehicleTheft of ServiceFreight TrainRosendo Guzman RamirezCriminal TrespassIntent to Commit TheftUndocumented WorkersEl PasoConviction Reversed
References
0
Case No. 04-09-00017-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

Mary S. Roberts v. State

Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Theft by CoercionTheft by DeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityLaw of PartiesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMistake of Law DefenseJury Charge ErrorIndictment ValidityConstitutional Challenge
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. New York State Department of Labor

In this concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argues against the majority's expansion of the workplace exception to the warrant requirement, asserting it infringes upon a government employee's reasonable expectation of privacy under the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment. The judge contends that placing a GPS device on a personal car to investigate workplace misconduct, even during work hours, requires a warrant. Citing cases like People v Weaver and United States v Jones, the opinion highlights the highly intrusive nature of GPS surveillance, which can reveal extensive personal information. It distinguishes the search of a personal vehicle from workplace searches permitted under O’Connor v Ortega, emphasizing that a personal car is outside the employer's control and traditional workplace boundaries. The opinion warns that allowing warrantless GPS tracking sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread electronic surveillance of government employees based on a mere 'reasonableness' standard without judicial oversight.

GPS trackingWarrant requirementWorkplace exceptionFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionGovernment employeesPrivacy rightsWorkplace misconductElectronic surveillancePersonal vehicle search
References
11
Case No. 08-19-00020-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2020

Desiree Boltos v. State

Desiree Boltos was convicted on six counts related to the exploitation and theft of significant sums of money from six elderly individuals through a scheme involving romantic deception, false claims of illness, and purported business investments. The jury found her guilty of aggregated theft of over $300,000, individual theft counts from Paul Wilbur, Douglas Wingo, James Olmstead, and Richard Lima, and exploitation of an elderly person (Paul Wilbur). She received concurrent sentences ranging from 10 to 85 years, along with $10,000 fines. On appeal, Boltos challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for aggregation of offenses and individual theft counts, argued that multiple punishments violated double jeopardy, sought to suppress email evidence obtained via a search warrant, and contested the legality of subpoenas used for third-party bank and casino records. The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting all claims, finding sufficient evidence, no double jeopardy violation, the search warrant properly issued, and upholding the use of subpoenas under existing precedent.

TheftExploitation of ElderlyFraudFinancial CrimesAggregated OffensesSufficiency of EvidenceDouble JeopardySearch WarrantEmail EvidenceSubpoena
References
45
Case No. 278 S.W.3d 778
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

Roberts v. State

Mary Roberts appealed her conviction on five counts of theft by coercion or deception. Between April and October 2001, Roberts engaged in sexual relations with multiple men. Her husband, Ted Roberts, subsequently initiated pre-suit discovery petitions (Rule 202 Petitions) against these men, alleging adultery and other potential claims, and demanding monetary settlements. Mary Roberts actively assisted Ted by typing revisions to the petitions, delivering one petition, and arranging meetings. The complainants paid significant sums, portions of which were used for the Roberts' personal expenses, including the purchase of a new home. On appeal, Roberts challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing a lack of causation and intent, and asserted an affirmative defense of mistake of law. She also raised issues regarding jury instructions, the indictment's sufficiency, and the constitutionality of the theft statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, finding sufficient evidence of her intent and criminal responsibility as a party to the offense, upholding the trial court's jury instructions, and rejecting her challenges to the indictment and the theft statute's constitutionality. The court clarified that the State was not required to establish "but for" causation but rather that Roberts acted with intent to assist Ted in committing theft by deception or coercion.

TheftCoercionDeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityParty to OffenseAffirmative DefenseMistake of LawJury InstructionIndictment SufficiencyConstitutional Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 1,048 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