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. M2008-01181-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Wright

This Supreme Court case addresses the appropriate method for calculating attorney's fees when representing a minor. The attorney, Johnny V. Dunaway, secured a $425,000 settlement for minor Kaitlyn Lee Wright following an automobile accident. Initially, the trial court awarded Dunaway one-third of the settlement based on a contingent fee agreement. Following an appeal by the guardian ad litem, the case was remanded, and the trial court, after an evidentiary hearing, awarded $131,000 using the factors from Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 8, Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a). The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, clarifying that these factors should be applied without singular emphasis, while upholding the trial court's discretion and stressing the court's special responsibility to protect minors' best interests.

Attorney's FeesMinor RepresentationContingency Fee AgreementsJudicial DiscretionRule of Professional Conduct 1.5(a)Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlementGuardian ad LitemEstate Law
References
49
Case No. 03-18-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

Yvette Mata v. Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC Dalton Marek And Wright Distributing Co., Inc.

Yvette Mata appealed the district court's dismissal of her personal injury suit against Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC, Dalton Marek, and Wright Distributing Co., Inc. for want of prosecution. She contended that the district court provided inadequate notice of its intent to dismiss and erred in denying her motion to reinstate the case. The appellate court found that Mata was presumed to know Williamson County's local rules requiring a motion to retain, thus deeming the dismissal notice adequate. Furthermore, the court determined that any potential due process issues were rectified by the post-dismissal hearing on Mata's motion to reinstate. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Mata failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prosecuting her case.

Personal injurydismissal for want of prosecutionmotion to reinstateappellate reviewdue diligenceinadequate noticeabuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedurelocal court rulesappellate procedure
References
19
Case No. 3-90-149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1991

Robert E. Wright v. City of Austin

Robert E. Wright appealed a district court judgment that set aside an Industrial Accident Board award for workers' compensation benefits. Wright allegedly sustained an injury on June 7, 1988, while in the course and scope of his employment with the City of Austin. The jury found that Wright did not receive a job-related injury, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict against him. Wright argued on appeal that the jury's failure to find a job-related injury was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. However, the appellate court noted that Wright failed to file a motion for new trial, which is a prerequisite for raising factual sufficiency challenges on appeal. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureFactual SufficiencyMotion for New TrialTexas Court of AppealsEmployment InjuryCivil ProcedureAward Set AsideJudicial ReviewTravis County
References
2
Case No. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

in the Interest of V.A., V.A., and V.A., Minor Children

The Thirteenth District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, affirmed the termination of a biological mother's parental rights to her three minor daughters, V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.A.3. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) initially sued the mother, alleging conditions endangering the children and the mother's failure to comply with court-ordered actions for family reunification under sections of the Texas Family Code. A jury found statutory grounds for termination and that it was in the children's best interest. The mother appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the trial court's admission of alleged 'backdoor hearsay' testimony regarding drug use. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the mother failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan and that termination was in the children's best interest. The court also concluded there was no reversible error in the admission of the challenged testimony, as it was consistent with other admitted evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareTexas Family CodeFactual SufficiencyHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsUnstable Home EnvironmentSubstance Abuse
References
18
Case No. W2019-00559-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2020

State of Tennessee v. Octavious Wright

Octavious Wright, the Defendant-Appellant, was indicted for the rape and aggravated sexual battery of two minor victims, A.B. and A.G. The charges related to A.B. proceeded to trial, resulting in Wright's conviction for rape and a thirty-five-year sentence. On appeal, Wright challenged the trial court's exclusion of a Tennessee Child Protective Services investigative report, arguing it was admissible under the business record exception to the hearsay rule and that its exclusion violated his due process right to present a defense. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statement within the report from Family Service Worker Justice was not relevant to Wright's case as it concerned an allegation of abuse by A.B.'s foster mother, not Wright.

Criminal LawRapeAggravated Sexual BatteryHearsayDue ProcessEvidence ExclusionChild Protective ServicesAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorJuvenile Victim
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1998

Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

This class action was commenced by retired Curtiss-Wright employees, represented by the United Steelworkers of America, against Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that Curtiss-Wright breached its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and violated ERISA by unilaterally terminating retiree health insurance benefits in May 1987, seeking damages and a permanent injunction for lifetime benefits. The central legal question revolved around whether these retiree health insurance benefits were vested for the retirees' lives. Initially, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the relevant contract language ambiguous, and a jury subsequently found a breach of the CBA by Curtiss-Wright. However, the court later re-examined the documents in light of new Second Circuit precedent, which provided a narrower standard for interpreting CBAs and insurance plan documents concerning vesting. The court ultimately concluded that the CBA and insurance plan documents unambiguously established that benefits were tied to the specific durational clauses of the agreements and were terminable upon their expiration. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was denied as duplicative. Consequently, all of the plaintiffs' motions for judgment, including for a permanent injunction, were denied.

Employee Retirement Income Security ActLabor Management Relations ActRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementInsurance AgreementFiduciary DutySummary Plan DescriptionSummary Annual ReportContract Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'DELL v. Wright

Rebecca Wright sued Christopher O’Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and constructive discharge, winning $425,000 in mental anguish damages at trial. O’Dell appealed, raising four issues: the exclusion of a defense witness, the allowance of Wright's testimony about a childhood sexual assault, the trial court's failure to apply a statutory cap to damages, and the sufficiency of evidence for the mental anguish award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the witness exclusion or the admission of Wright's testimony. It also determined that O'Dell waived the statutory cap defense by not pleading it and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's mental anguish awards.

Sexual HarassmentAssault and BatteryConstructive DischargeMental Anguish DamagesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingStatutory Damages CapAffirmative DefenseDiscovery AbuseJury Verdict
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Gifford-Hill & Co.

Reva Wright, the widow of Charles Wright, sued Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. for exemplary damages under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, alleging gross negligence led to her husband's death. A jury found Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. 65% grossly negligent and awarded $450,000 in exemplary damages. The trial court initially entered a take-nothing judgment, a decision that was partially based on a legal precedent later overturned by the Texas Supreme Court. On remand, the appellate court affirmed the take-nothing judgment, not because of insufficient evidence for gross negligence or proximate cause, but on the grounds that Wright's claim against Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. was barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that Wright failed to conclusively prove that Gifford-Hill American, Inc., the initially sued entity, was the "alter ego" of Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. to toll the limitation period.

Exemplary damagesGross negligenceWorker's Compensation ActStatute of limitationsComparative negligenceCorporate alter egoParent-subsidiary liabilityWorkplace safetyProximate causeTexas law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kimmey Wright sought judicial review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, denying her applications for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Judge William F. Kuntz, II presided over the motions for judgment on the pleadings from both parties. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously denied Wright's applications, finding she was not disabled under the five-step SSA process, determining she had severe impairments but an adequate residual functional capacity (RFC) for certain jobs. Wright challenged the ALJ's decision, arguing a violation of the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Lubin's testimony and that the vocational expert's (VE) testimony did not reflect her RFC. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the Commissioner's, upholding the ALJ's determination that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons to discount Dr. Lubin's opinion and that the VE's testimony was based on a correct RFC.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleVocational Expert TestimonyResidual Functional CapacitySchizophreniaMajor Depressive DisorderPersonality Disorder
References
26
Case No. 06-01-00090-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2002

Nancy Renee Wright v. State of Texas

Nancy R. Wright pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine after her punishment range was enhanced by two prior felony convictions, resulting in a five-year imprisonment sentence. On appeal, Wright argued the trial court erred by interrupting her voir dire and commenting on her prior criminal record, which she contended led her to plead guilty instead of not guilty. The appellate court found that Wright failed to preserve the issue for review because she did not object to the trial court's statements during the trial. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Criminal AppealDrug PossessionFelony EnhancementJury Voir DireJudicial CommentPreservation of ErrorAppellate JurisdictionDue ProcessSentencing GuidelinesTexas Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 34,050 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