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
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Case No. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. 13-02-529-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

in Re: C & H News Co.

The relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division (also known as C & H News Co.), petitioned the Thirteenth District Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus. The relator sought to compel arbitration in a wrongful death suit brought by Odilia Gallegos and others (real parties in interest) following the death of an employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent, Judge Rolando Olvera of the 357th District Court of Cameron County, had denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. This appellate court previously denied mandamus relief due to an incomplete record. Upon a second review with a complete record, the Court found that the arbitration agreement, by incorporating an employee handbook, allowed the relator to unilaterally amend the types of claims subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was an illusory promise, lacking mutuality of obligation, and therefore unenforceable. The petition for writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseEmployment ContractMutuality of ObligationUnilateral AmendmentFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arkla Energy Resources v. Jones

Arkla Energy Resources sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Guy Jones of the 202nd District Court, requesting the disqualification of the law firm Hubbard, Patton, Peek, Haltom & Roberts (HPPHR). Arkla argued a conflict of interest, citing HPPHR's prior representation of Arkla in negligence and workers' compensation cases, and its current representation of landowners in condemnation actions against Arkla. Arkla asserted that the condemnation cases, involving claims for damages related to gas pipeline explosions, were substantially related to the previous cases. The court, however, determined that any relationship between the matters was minimal, as the negligence cases focused on specific product negligence while the condemnation cases involved general public apprehension. Concluding that Judge Jones did not abuse his discretion by refusing the disqualification, the court denied Arkla's petition for mandamus.

MandamusDisqualificationConflict of InterestAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstantial Relationship TestCondemnationPipeline EasementsNegligenceWorkers' CompensationProfessional Responsibility
References
15
Case No. 14-05-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2005

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam's Club, & Sam's East, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam=s Club, and Sam=s East, Inc. (collectively, Wal-Mart) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order setting a joint trial for Elena Lopez, Margie Daniels, and LaFrance Jones. These plaintiffs had sued Wal-Mart for alleged failures to pay for missed rest/meal breaks and off-the-clock work. Wal-Mart argued that a joint trial for three plaintiffs would cause jury confusion and prejudice, making an appeal an inadequate remedy. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that Wal-Mart possessed an adequate remedy by appeal, as the circumstances of the joint trial were not extraordinary enough to warrant mandamus relief.

MandamusJoint TrialClass ActionAppellate RemedyAbuse of DiscretionConsolidation OrderTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid WagesRest Breaks
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Partida v. Castaneda

Petitioner Rodrigo Partida filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, alleging denial of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claimed systematic underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans on the state grand jury that indicted him in Hidalgo County, Texas. The Respondent argued waiver of the claim, but the federal court chose to consider the merits since state courts had done so. While acknowledging a bare prima facie case of disproportion based on historical data, the court found it rebutted. The decision highlighted inaccuracies in the petitioner's statistics and strong circumstantial evidence against discriminatory intent, such as the presence of Mexican-American judges and jury commissioners in a county with a Mexican-American governing majority. Consequently, the court denied Partida's petition, dismissing the cause.

Habeas CorpusGrand Jury DiscriminationMexican-American UnderrepresentationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionWaiver of Constitutional ClaimHidalgo County
References
45
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braden v. Marquez

Sotera Pineira obtained a $20,000 judgment against her employer, Alliance Health Inc., for a work-related injury. Alliance subsequently sold its assets, prompting Pineira to pursue an alter ego theory against Frank Braden and Bill Ehrhardt, alleging they were Alliance's alter egos to satisfy the judgment. Ehrhardt filed a special appearance, and both Braden and Ehrhardt filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to add them to the lawsuit after the original judgment became final. The trial court denied both motions, prompting Braden and Ehrhardt (relators) to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court denied leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, finding no clear abuse of discretion in the denial of the special appearance and no extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief for the plea to the jurisdiction.

MandamusSpecial AppearancePlea to JurisdictionAlter EgoCorporate VeilPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionEnforcement of JudgmentAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by Appeal
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 22,090 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