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. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1989

Sun Exploration and Production Co. v. Jackson

Justice Gonzalez's concurring opinion addresses Justice Spears' concerns about judicial bias stemming from familial relationships between trial Judge Wilborn, the plaintiffs (Jacksons), and their attorney. Gonzalez asserts that Judge Wilborn was neither disqualified nor required to recuse himself under existing law, as his relationship fell outside the constitutional and statutory third-degree parameters. The opinion refutes criticisms based on the Code of Judicial Conduct and prospective rule changes, arguing against presuming bias merely from a familial link. It also discusses the waiver of recusal motions when knowledge is acquired post-trial, suggesting appellate courts can review for evident bias in the record. Ultimately, Gonzalez concludes Judge Wilborn acted appropriately within the legal framework and that the case's remand allows further development on the recusal issue.

judicial disqualificationrecusalfamilial relationshipjudicial ethicsTexas lawappellate reviewconflict of interesttrial judgeattorney relationshipdue process
References
7
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. W2000-00730-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2002

Huntington Eldridge v. Deborah Eldridge

This case involves an appeal from a divorce decree. The Wife appealed the trial court's decision regarding property division, child support, and alimony, also alleging judicial bias. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings against judicial bias and the grounds for divorce. However, the appellate court found errors in the classification of certain marital and separate property, specifically regarding the Greenbay house equity and investment accounts. The court also found errors in the child support calculation and the alimony award. Consequently, the case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reconsideration of property distribution, child support, and alimony consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

DivorceMarital PropertyChild SupportAlimonyJudicial BiasSeparate PropertyComminglingEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewRemand
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farkas v. Ellis

The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of Judge William C. Conner, based on allegations of bias and prejudice. Plaintiffs cited judicial acts and statements, as well as a perceived 'working relationship' between the judge and the Administrator, Mr. Ellis. The Court denied the recusal motion, stating that the alleged bias did not stem from an extrajudicial source, which is a requirement for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(b)(1). The Court also clarified that even under the objective 'reasonable person' standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), no appearance of partiality was established. Furthermore, the Court raised concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction, ordering plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, as the Administrator, Mr. Ellis, is not an 'agency' under the cited statutes (5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706) for judicial review of agency actions.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasExtrajudicial Source of BiasSubject Matter JurisdictionAgency Action ReviewConsent Decree Administrator28 U.S.C. 14428 U.S.C. 4555 U.S.C. 7025 U.S.C. 706
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. ADJ10455142
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

RUBEN CELEDON vs. ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ALLOYS, LLC, ENSTAR NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant alleged bias due to a purported "preexisting relationship" with applicant's attorney and the WCJ's rulings. However, the defendant provided no specific facts to support the relationship claim, and the WCJ denied it. Erroneous rulings, even if numerous, do not automatically establish judicial bias, and the WCJ had previously corrected an order at the defendant's request. The Board found no evidence of bias and denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10452WCJ biaspreexisting relationshiperroneous rulingsaffidavitCode of Civil Procedure Section 641declaration under penalty of perjurysubjective perception of biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Donovan

Plaintiff, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, initiated this action seeking judicial review of several decisions by the Department of Labor concerning his workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in 1979. Although claims for head and knee injuries were approved, his back injury claim was denied, leading him to seek reconsideration and alleging a denial of due process due to a hearing representative's perceived bias. The plaintiff sought court intervention to disqualify the Department of Labor and appoint a special hearing officer. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), which generally bars judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's decisions on workers' compensation. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action because the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies within the Department of Labor, thus deeming the complaint unripe for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimRipeness DoctrineExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawFBI Agent
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,126 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