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. 10-23-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Vincin Campise v. Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, & Roberto Rico

Vincin Campise appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hector Davila, Victor Mireles, Alonzo Robles, and Roberto Rico. Campise, acting pro se, had initially filed a petition alleging identity theft, fraud, credit-reporting violations, deceptive trade practices, and civil conspiracy related to his bank accounts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Campise failed to present sufficient summary-judgment evidence for any of his claims. Furthermore, the court noted that Campise's identity theft and credit-reporting claims, as pleaded, did not constitute viable civil causes of action under Texas law.

Summary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil ProcedureNo-Evidence MotionFraud ClaimIdentity Theft ClaimDeceptive Trade PracticesCivil Conspiracy
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 01-11-00972-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2013

Tracy Brown v. Janet Kleerekoper

Tracy Brown sued Janet KleereKoper alleging breach of contract, theft of property, and theft of services under the Texas Theft Liability Act. A jury awarded Brown $20 for theft-of-services and $242 for breach-of-contract but found against him on the theft-of-property claim. As a result, KleereKoper was awarded $7,747.14 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the theft-of-property claim. Brown appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the award of attorney's fees to KleereKoper, and the constitutionality of the TTLA's 'loser pay' provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denials, that KleereKoper was a prevailing party, and that the TTLA's fee provisions are constitutional.

Theft of ServicesBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Theft Liability ActConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionOpen Courts Provision
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rosario

Defendant Ana Rosario was indicted on charges of identity theft and grand larceny. She was accused of using her employer's and his girlfriend's bank accounts for unauthorized purchases and credit card payments while working as a home aide. A jury found her guilty on all counts. The defendant subsequently moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the court's instruction to the jury on the definition of 'financial loss' was improper, particularly because the victims were reimbursed by their banks. The court denied the motion, ruling that 'financial loss' encompasses the value of what was taken, even if later reimbursed, and extends to losses incurred by financial institutions.

Identity TheftGrand LarcenyJury InstructionFinancial Loss DefinitionPenal LawCriminal Procedure LawMotion to Set Aside VerdictStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentVictim Reimbursement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabriel v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggregated theft of over $200,000, involving a scheme of fraudulently obtained credit cards and false identities. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from warrantless searches of his garbage and private postal box, arguing Fourth Amendment violations. He also contended the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause and disputed the sufficiency of evidence for venue in Fort Bend County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the searches lawful, the warrant supported by probable cause, and venue properly established.

TheftCredit Card FraudFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressWarrantless SearchGarbage SearchPostal Box SearchProbable CauseSearch WarrantVenue
References
22
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01713 [227 AD3d 36]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2024

Matter of Merrill

Anthony V. Merrill, an attorney, faced 11 charges of professional misconduct, including identity theft, commingling client funds, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to maintain proper records and file required statements with the Office of Court Administration. The Special Referee sustained all charges. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's report and suspended Merrill from the practice of law for 18 months, without credit for prior suspension time. Merrill's misconduct occurred during a period when he was suffering from an untreated compulsive gambling addiction, for which he has since sought treatment and maintained abstinence.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsClient fundsFiduciary duty breachIdentity theftRecord keeping violationsSuspension from practiceGambling addictionMitigating circumstancesAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. 14-03-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision

W & F Transportation, Inc. v. Wilhelm

This case involves an appeal by W & F Transportation, Inc., E.H. Wilhelm, Sr., and Margaret Wilhelm against a jury verdict favoring Cindy and Ricky Wilhelm. The court granted a motion for rehearing, ruling that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c) did not apply, thereby allowing review of the appeal despite an unrecorded non-evidentiary portion of the trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against W & F Transportation, Inc. for breach of contract, fraud, and identity theft. However, it reversed the judgment against E.H. Wilhelm, Sr. and Margaret Wilhelm individually, concluding that the jury verdict lacked specific findings of their personal liability.

Appellate ReviewTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureRecord on AppealNon-Evidentiary ArgumentsJury InstructionsCorporate VeilPersonal LiabilityFraud ClaimContract BreachPunitive Damages Award
References
40
Case No. M2015-00944-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2016

State of Tennessee v. John G. Apfel aka Raymond Debartolomies

John G. Apfel, also known as Raymond DeBartolomies, appealed his conviction for theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 and his four-year sentence. The appellant fraudulently received Supplemental Security Income (S.S.I.) benefits from 2009 to 2011 by using the identity of a deceased person, claiming an earlier birth date to qualify for age-based benefits despite not being old enough. He argued insufficient evidence and an improper denial of alternative sentencing, citing his potential eligibility for disability benefits and his old convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence of deception and no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision.

Theft by DeceptionSocial Security FraudIdentity MisrepresentationCriminal AppealSentencing GuidelinesRestitution OrderPrior ConvictionsSufficiency of EvidenceDirect AppealJudicial Discretion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

Thawar v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

This case concerns Plaintiff Guiñar Thawar's allegations of misconduct by her employer, 7-Eleven, Inc. Thawar claimed 7-Eleven failed to protect her personal information, resulting in identity theft, and subjected her to hostile treatment, including a physical battery by a manager. She brought seven claims, including FMLA discrimination, COBRA violations, conversion, battery, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. 7-Eleven moved to dismiss several claims. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Thawar's COBRA, battery, and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding deficiencies in her pleadings or legal arguments. However, the Court denied dismissal for her conversion and negligence claims, deeming them sufficiently pleaded for now, and also granted Thawar leave to amend her COBRA and battery claims.

Employment LawFMLACOBRAData BreachIdentity TheftConversionBatteryNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationMotion to Dismiss
References
41
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 31684(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Paul v. New York City Housing Authority

Petitioner, a Section 8 rent subsidy recipient, was found by NYCHA to have failed to report over $25,000 in income between 2001-2005, leading to a calculated overpayment of $6,412. She subsequently entered into a stipulation to repay this sum, but later fell behind on payments, exacerbated by personal circumstances including domestic violence and periods in shelters. NYCHA initiated termination of her Section 8 subsidy, a decision upheld after a hearing where her defense regarding the erroneous basis of the overpayment was limited. Petitioner commenced an article 78 proceeding, asserting she was a victim of identity theft which caused the incorrect income attribution. The court determined that the stipulation was based on a mutual mistake of fact regarding her true income, thus rendering it void. Consequently, the court annulled NYCHA's determination to terminate her subsidy, further noting the severe and disproportionate impact of such termination given her disability and the needs of her minor son.

Section 8rent subsidyincome overpaymentidentity theftmutual mistake of factstipulation voidanceArticle 78 proceedingagency determination annulmenthousing terminationdisability
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 440 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