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. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Copeland

Michael Copeland sought a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to vacate an order forcing arbitration with his employer, Stanley Transportation, Inc., following a work-related injury. Copeland contested the validity and public policy compliance of the arbitration agreement, specifically challenging the trial court's finding that Stanley's employee benefit plan offered benefits comparable to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc., the court clarified that comparing benefit plan equivalence is not a relevant issue for compelling arbitration. Consequently, as the sole stated basis for the mandamus petition was deemed irrelevant, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus was denied.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusEmployment LawContract ValidityPublic PolicyFederal Arbitration ActTexas LawPreemptionEmployee Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board of the State of Texas v. Spears

The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Carolyn H. Spears to disqualify Bruce Miller and the law firm Tinsman & Houser from representing Jesse Casias in a tort action. The IAB argued a conflict of interest because Margaret Maisel, a member of the firm, previously served as IAB chairman and legal advisor. The court found that Maisel's prior role and knowledge of the notice issue in Casias's case created a substantial relationship and a conclusive presumption of shared confidences within her firm. Additionally, Maisel was deemed a potential material witness and a former government attorney without consent to represent the IAB's adversary. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering the disqualification, rejecting arguments of waiver and undue delay, and thus conditionally granted the writ of mandamus.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationWrit of MandamusEthical StandardsFormer ClientMaterial WitnessGovernment AttorneyTexas Tort Claims ActActual NoticeProfessional Responsibility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enterprise Products Co. v. Sanderson

The Ninth Court of Appeals addressed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Products Company against Judge Gary Sanderson, who had ordered the production of documents in a lawsuit filed by David and Wanda Ling. The Lings' employee, David Ling, suffered a severe injury at an Enterprise facility. Enterprise claimed the documents were privileged work product or prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court affirmed Judge Sanderson's ruling that documents prepared before the lawsuit was filed (June 12, 1987) were discoverable, citing a lack of 'outward manifestation' of impending litigation. The Court denied the Writ of Mandamus but modified some paragraphs of the trial judge's order, particularly regarding future safety procedures and the sharing of production costs.

Discovery DisputeWrit of MandamusWork Product PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedurePost-Accident InvestigationOutward Manifestation TestJudicial DiscretionAdmissibility of EvidenceScope of Discovery
References
13
Case No. A-0170444
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Adhi-Lakshmi Corporation

Melissa Mandil, an employee of Adhi-Lakshmi Corporation at Parkdale Green Apartments, sustained injuries in a fall. She and her husband, Steven Mandil, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Adhi-Lakshmi, asserting non-subscription to workers' compensation. Adhi-Lakshmi sought to compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause within an employee handbook Melissa had signed. The trial court, under Judge James Mehaffy, denied this motion to compel. Consequently, Adhi-Lakshmi filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn the denial. The appellate court found the arbitration agreement enforceable against Melissa, as Adhi-Lakshmi had adopted the employee handbook. The writ was conditionally granted for Melissa's claims, compelling arbitration, but the court deferred judgment on Steven's loss of consortium claims due to procedural issues.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawMandamusContract InterpretationEmployee HandbookTexas Court of AppealsScope of ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Polymerica, LLC

Polymerica, LLC d/b/a Global Enterprises, Inc. (Global) sought a writ of mandamus against Judge M. Sue Kurita, requesting the trial court to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Angelica Soltero. Soltero, a former human resources manager, sued Global after her employment was terminated, alleging wrongful termination due to national origin and retaliation, citing the Texas Labor Code. Global contended that Soltero was bound by arbitration agreements from her joint employment with Global and Dickason Staff Leasing Company. The trial court denied Global’s motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court, finding an abuse of discretion, conditionally granted the writ of mandamus in part, instructing the trial court to compel arbitration for claims arising before the termination of the joint employment agreement, as Soltero had received substantial benefits from the arbitration agreements during that period. The court did not compel arbitration for claims arising after the joint agreement ended.

ArbitrationWrit of MandamusEmployment LawEquitable EstoppelDirect Benefits EstoppelWrongful TerminationRetaliationSexual Harassment ClaimJoint EmploymentFederal Arbitration Act
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crowe v. Smith

Relators petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent court to set aside orders quashing the deposition of Dr. Michael M. Donovan and denying a rehearing. Dr. Donovan had examined Patricia A. Ramsey, the plaintiff in an underlying negligence suit against the relators, for a worker's compensation claim. The relators sought to depose Dr. Donovan, whose report was favorable to their case, but the trial court deemed him a "solely for consultation" expert, exempt from deposition. This court found the trial court abused its discretion, as there was no clear evidence Dr. Donovan was exclusively for trial preparation, and Ramsey's counsel conceded he was not retained for consultation. Consequently, the writ was conditionally granted, instructing the respondent to vacate the prior orders.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeExpert WitnessMedical ExpertMotion to QuashAbuse of DiscretionRules of Civil ProcedureConsulting ExpertDepositionWorker's Compensation Claim
References
2
Case No. C-179715
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Bullock

Relators filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Larry Thorne of the 317th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an adoption order for C.A.T.B. Previous litigation in Brazos County had seen Castro's parental rights terminated, then later reinstated via a bill of review, which consequently voided Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The relators contended that the orders granting the bill of review and setting aside the adoption were void due to statutory six-month limitations under the Texas Family Code. However, the appellate court denied the writ, ruling that these statutory requirements were not jurisdictional prerequisites and the defense was waived by not being timely asserted in the original bill of review hearing. Therefore, the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the reinstatement of the termination and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AdoptionWrit of MandamusJudicial DiscretionJurisdictional PrerequisitesStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DefenseBill of ReviewFamily Law TexasChild Reunification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union City Body Co., Inc. v. Ramirez

Relator Union City Body Co. sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Mario Ramirez after the trial court severed Union City's cross-claims from the underlying personal injury lawsuit initiated by Ranee and Linda Bighorse. The underlying case stemmed from a 1990 automobile accident where Ranee Bighorse, driving a Union City van, suffered paralyzing injuries. The trial court sustained special exceptions to Union City's cross-actions and severed them, allowing the main case against Movac and Union City to proceed. Union City's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this mandamus petition. The appellate court found that Union City had waived its objections to the severance by failing to make a timely and specific objection during the initial hearing, only raising the issue the following day after the severed parties had been excused. Consequently, the appellate court concluded there was no clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, and denied the writ.

MandamusWrit of MandamusSeveranceAbuse of DiscretionWaiverPretrial MotionsCross-claimsThird-party ActionsTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 648 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