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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Cernat

This case involves an appeal by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu, sustained injuries when their towed truck was hit by a Pilgrim's Pride vehicle. The jury found both parties partially responsible. The appeals court modified the trial court's judgment, ruling that the initial calculation of damages under comparative negligence statutes was erroneous and should be reduced based on the defendant's liability percentage. However, the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's awards for the plaintiffs' lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Comparative negligencePersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentRear-end collisionDamagesLost earning capacityFuture medical expensesFactual sufficiencyLegal sufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. 14-02-00289-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Burton, Kevin v. State

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation where Kevin Burton challenged the trial court's decision. Burton was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and faced revocation for failing to comply with terms, including paying fines and performing community service. The appellant argued insufficient evidence for the violations and improper admission of extraneous offense evidence. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's discretion in admitting evidence during the punishment phase. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations and that the extraneous offense evidence was relevant for assessing punishment.

Probation RevocationSufficiency of EvidenceCommunity Service ViolationFailure to Pay FinesExtraneous OffensesAdmissibility of EvidencePunishment HearingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionControlled Substance Possession
References
15
Case No. E2006-00883-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

State of Tennessee v. David Harold Hanson

The defendant, David Harold Hanson, was convicted of aggravated child abuse involving an infant. On direct appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly concerning the 'knowing' element and the definition of 'accidental means' in jury instructions. The appellate court concluded that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the defendant knowingly caused the injuries without accident, thus reversing the conviction and dismissing the case. However, the court found sufficient medical evidence to support that the victim suffered 'serious bodily injury.' Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's instructions on 'accidental means,' 'knowingly,' and sequential jury instructions.

Aggravated Child AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsAccidental MeansKnowing Mental StateSerious Bodily InjuryCriminal AppealReversed JudgmentCase DismissedChild Abuse Syndrome
References
30
Case No. 01-15-00680-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

ESP Resources, Inc., F/K/A Pantera Petroleum, Inc. v. BWC Management, Inc.

BWC Management, Inc. successfully sued ESP Resources, Inc. for unpaid amounts on three promissory notes. The jury sided with BWC Management, leading to a judgment by the trial court. On appeal, ESP Resources challenged the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, and the legal and factual sufficiency of the verdict. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error, ruling that while some evidence admission was harmless, other evidence was properly admitted, and the exclusion of certain evidence was not preserved for review. The court also concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

Promissory NotesContract DisputeHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionEvidence AdmissibilityLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewCorporate FinanceSecurities and Exchange Commission
References
16
Case No. 03-05-00810-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2007

Anthony L. Martin, A/K/A Anthoney Levane Martin v. State

Anthony L. Martin challenges the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting a trial court's judgment finding him jointly and severally liable for expenses and administrative fees incurred by the State of Texas in cleaning up an abandoned salt water disposal facility. Martin was held liable as an officer of the defunct Texas corporation, Pathfinder Capital, L.C., which was responsible for the cleanup. Martin argues that he was not an officer at the time the State incurred expenses and that documentary evidence of cleanup costs should have been excluded because it consisted of summaries offered without complying with the requirements of Texas Rule of Evidence 1006. The State responds with controverting evidence of his officer status, citing exhibits signed by Martin, and argues the damage evidence was admissible as public records under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(8). The court overrules Martin's points of error, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the implicit finding that Martin was a Pathfinder officer and that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the cleanup cost documents as public records. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TexasAppeals CourtCorporate Officer LiabilityEnvironmental CleanupTax Code ViolationEvidence AdmissibilityPublic RecordsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyForfeited Corporate Privileges
References
17
Case No. NO. 01-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2007

Yahya Hassan, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Company and Kemal Mohammed, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Cab Company v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A Yellow Cab

This is a dissenting opinion in a trade dress infringement case brought by Greater Houston Transportation Company d/b/a Yellow Cab against Yahya Hassan and Kemal Mohammed d/b/a Safe Cab Co. under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that the appellant failed to preserve its challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and erroneously rejected a legally correct jury charge on 'secondary meaning.' Justice Keyes, the author of the dissent, contends that the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous and, even if it were, the error would not have caused an improper judgment due to sufficient evidence of trade dress infringement. The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.

Trade Dress InfringementLanham ActSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawUnfair CompetitionTaxi Services
References
30
Case No. 2-03-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

in the Interest of T.N. and M.N., Children

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of J.N. (Mother) and S.N. (Father) to their children, T.N. and M.N. The parents appealed the termination, challenging the children's attorney's performance, trial court's rulings on challenges for cause, and the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment and the children's best interest. The court found Mother lacked standing for her complaints and failed to preserve other issues. For Father, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony and found sufficient evidence of endangerment due to his conduct, including leaving children with a substance-abusing grandmother and Mother, and their own domestic violence. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in the children's best interest, citing Father's instability and limited participation in recommended programs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyAttorney Ad LitemDue ProcessChallenges for CauseExpert TestimonyLay Testimony
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 16,828 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