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

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Jenkins

Gladys Elaine Blanton Jenkins, a member of the Athens City Council, filed a libel action against Paul Martin Clark and Black Citizens For Justice, Law and Order, Inc. (BCJLO). The suit stemmed from a memorandum authored by Clark, BCJLO's president, which falsely accused Jenkins of being a convicted felon who served time for prostitution and drugs, and demanded her removal from office. A jury found Clark and BCJLO acted with actual malice, awarding Jenkins $300,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in exemplary damages. Clark and BCJLO appealed, asserting absolute privilege under the Texas Constitution's Petition Clause and insufficient evidence of actual malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting claims of absolute privilege and finding clear and convincing evidence of actual malice.

DefamationLibelActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeFirst AmendmentPetition ClauseTexas ConstitutionPublic FigureFree Speech
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bolling v. Baker

This is a slander case where appellee Rita Baker was awarded $65,000 in actual damages and $60,000 in exemplary damages against appellant David Bolling. Bolling, a physician, fired Baker, a nurse, after accusing her of dishonesty related to a patient's chart, subsequently telling staff she was a liar and untrustworthy. On appeal, Bolling raised multiple points of error, including the insufficiency of evidence for actual malice and the excessiveness of damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the finding of actual malice and that presumed damages were recoverable for slander per se in this context. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of certain evidence or the jury arguments.

SlanderDefamationActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesEmployment TerminationDishonesty AllegationsJury VerdictAppellate Affirmation
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers

This libel suit, brought by Dr. N. Jay Rogers against Harvey Katz and Doubleday & Co., Inc., stemmed from a false statement in Katz's book published by Doubleday. Although a jury found malice, it awarded no actual damages but assessed $2,500,000 in exemplary damages. The trial court's take-nothing judgment was reversed by the court of appeals, which then awarded the exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that exemplary damages require actual damages under Texas law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court independently reviewed the record and found no clear and convincing evidence that Doubleday acted with actual malice.

LibelDefamationExemplary DamagesActual DamagesActual MalicePublic OfficialFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublishing LawTexas Supreme Court
References
18
Case No. 13-01-009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2003

Haggar Clothing Company A/K/A Haggar Apparel Company v. Altagracia Hernandez

Haggar Clothing Company appealed a jury verdict finding it discharged Altagracia Hernandez in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Haggar challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for retaliation, actual malice, and damages, and questioned the admission of 'other incidents' evidence and jury charge instructions. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of retaliation and actual malice, and that the punitive damages award of $1,400,000 was not unconstitutionally excessive. It also upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings and jury charge.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargePunitive DamagesActual MaliceEmployment DiscriminationJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDue ProcessExcessive Damages
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C & D ROBOTICS, INC. v. Mann

Gregory J. Mann sued his former employer, C & D Robotics, Inc., for wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Mann's favor, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. C & D appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the causal link, the amount of actual/compensatory damages, the finding of malice, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings regarding the causal link and compensatory damages. However, it reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding there was no evidence of actual malice, and affirmed the trial court's award of prejudgment interest.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationDamagesCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMaliceLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyPrejudgment Interest
References
28
Case No. 07-06-0385-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2008

Paul Martin Clark and Black Citizens for Justice, Law and Order, Inc. v. Gladys Elaine Blanton Jenkins

Paul Martin Clark and Black Citizens For Justice, Law and Order, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Gladys Elaine Blanton Jenkins in a libel action. Appellants argued that defamatory statements against Jenkins were absolutely privileged and that there was insufficient evidence to establish actual malice. The statements, contained in a memorandum to a U.S. Congressman and the DOJ, falsely accused Jenkins, an Athens City Council member, of being a convicted felon for prostitution and drugs and demanded her immediate removal from office. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the statements were subject only to a qualified privilege and that there was clear and convincing evidence that Clark acted with actual malice.

LibelDefamationActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeAbsolute PrivilegeTexas ConstitutionFirst AmendmentPetition ClausePublic FigureFreedom of Speech
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montana v. Smith

Justice Callahan dissents from the majority decision, arguing that the constitutional standard of "convincing clarity" for demonstrating actual malice in defamation cases, as established in New York Times Co. v Sullivan, has not been met. He emphasizes that the determination of this standard is initially a judicial function. Citing Linn v Plant Guard Workers, Callahan highlights that labor disputes often involve strong, even reckless, language which is protected under Federal law, imposing a heavy burden on plaintiffs to prove actual malice, beyond mere falsity. For these reasons, and those from the Supreme Court, Erie County memorandum, Justice Callahan votes to affirm the lower court's decision to set aside the verdict.

DefamationLabor LawActual MaliceFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechAppellate ReviewStandard of ProofJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictCPLRDissenting Opinion
References
9
Case No. 00C-2704; 01C-1873
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. NewsChannel 5 Network, L.P.

Brad Lewis appealed the trial court's dismissal of his libel and false light invasion of privacy claims against NewsChannel 5 and its employees, stemming from a broadcast about alleged police misconduct by Major Carl Dollarhide, Lewis's brother-in-law. The appellate court determined that while the fair report privilege did not shield the defendants, Lewis was a limited-purpose public figure for the reported public controversy. Consequently, Lewis was required to prove "actual malice," meaning the defendants published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The court found no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, upholding the summary judgment. Thus, Lewis's claims for both libel and false light invasion of privacy were dismissed.

LibelFalse Light Invasion of PrivacyPublic Figure DoctrineActual Malice StandardFair Report PrivilegeFreedom of SpeechFreedom of the PressPolice MisconductSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
76
Showing 1-10 of 1,540 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