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

People v. Anonymous

This opinion addresses whether a complainant's statement to her insurance company constitutes Rosario material in a criminal mischief trial. Defense counsel argued for disclosure, citing the District Attorney's knowledge of the insurance claim due to restitution demands for the deductible. The court reviewed Rosario jurisprudence, emphasizing that disclosure is limited to statements within the prosecution's actual or constructive possession or control, typically made to law enforcement. It concluded that knowledge of an insurance claim or a statement made to a private entity does not create a Rosario duty for the prosecution to seek out or provide such documents. Therefore, the insurance report was deemed not to be Rosario material.

Rosario RuleDisclosureCriminal Procedure LawProsecutorial DutyInsurance ReportsWitness StatementsCriminal MischiefDiscoveryEvidenceNew York Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glass v. City of Chattanooga

The case concerns a motor vehicle accident where Queen Ann Glass, a school bus driver for the City of Chattanooga, was injured by a fellow employee's negligence. As the City of Chattanooga is exempt from workers' compensation laws, the dispute centered on the applicability of the common law fellow servant doctrine. The trial court initially awarded damages to Glass, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying the doctrine. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding the fellow servant doctrine to be an unjust and outdated rule that no longer serves a useful purpose in contemporary jurisprudence, and reinstated the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff.

Fellow Servant DoctrineRespondeat SuperiorCommon Law TortEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExemptionJudicial PrecedentNegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentBus DriverTennessee Supreme Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1990

Orange County v. Ware

Justice Mauzy, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Doggett and Gammage, strongly criticizes the majority's decision to effectively abolish the constitutional protection against wage garnishment in Texas, enshrined in Article 16, Section 28. Mauzy argues that allowing a creditor to assign a debt to the debtor's employer, enabling the employer to withhold wages, is an unconstitutional indirect circumvention of the garnishment ban. He highlights that this ruling disregards a century of jurisprudence consistently holding such actions unlawful and undermines the provision's original intent to protect debtors from destitution. Mauzy warns that the decision will force debtors into 'abject dependence and want,' contrary to the framers' intentions.

Wage GarnishmentConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionDebtors' RightsJudicial DissentStatutory InterpretationLegal PrecedentArticle 16 Section 28Employer-Employee RelationsCreditor-Debtor Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Motor Exp., Inc.

Justice Dorsey concurs with the analysis of Jerry Rodriguez's bystander claim, specifically addressing his right to recover for emotional distress caused by a near-miss with Guzman's car, even without physical impact. The opinion reviews Texas jurisprudence on emotional distress claims, citing key cases such as Hill v. Kimball, Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. v. Hayter, and Houston Elec. Co. v. Dorsett, which established that physical impact is not a prerequisite for recovery. It further notes that physical manifestation of emotional injury is also not required, as affirmed in Boyles v. Kerr. Dorsey concludes that Rodriguez should not be barred from recovery for his emotional injuries despite not being physically struck.

emotional distressnegligencebystander claimno physical impactmental anguishTexas common lawfright and shockpsychological injurynear-miss accidenttort law
References
6
Case No. W1997-00246-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2000

James Carroll v. Carolyn Whitney, M.D. - Dissenting

Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson dissents from the majority's decision, arguing it departs from settled principles of law by allowing a jury to allocate fault to an immune nonparty. He contends that this ruling wrongly overrules Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co., which he asserts is consistent with McIntyre and subsequent comparative fault jurisprudence in Tennessee. Anderson emphasizes that Ridings held fault can only be attributed to those against whom a plaintiff has a cause of action, and that the majority's new policy undermines the doctrine of stare decisis, creates inconsistency, and unfairly shifts the risk of loss onto plaintiffs. He argues that the prior rulings were workable and that the current decision lacks sufficient justification for such a significant reversal of legal precedent.

Comparative FaultImmune NonpartyStare DecisisNegligence LawTort LiabilityWorkers' CompensationFault AllocationJudicial PrecedentTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1994

People v. France

This is a combined decision addressing motions to vacate homicide convictions in six separate cases. The defendants argued that the prosecutor failed to disclose dictation audiotapes made by the New York City Medical Examiner, which they claimed constituted 'Rosario' material. The court denied the motions, ruling that the Medical Examiner's Office is an independent agency, and therefore, the audiotapes were not under the control of the District Attorney and not 'Rosario' material. The decision further clarifies that CPL article 240 provides for pretrial discovery of written reports but not dictation tapes, unless they contain exculpatory material. The court emphasized the Medical Examiner's role as an independent expert, distinct from 'event' or law enforcement witnesses, and concluded that their dictation tapes are not 'statements' within the 'Rosario' jurisprudence.

Rosario materialDiscovery rulesCPL 440.10 motionHomicide convictionMedical Examiner audiotapeAutopsy reportProsecutorial dutyDuplicative equivalentIndependent agencyCPL Article 240
References
31
Case No. 01-08-00905-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2009

Landon Jones and Loren Jones v. City of Houston

Landon and Loren Jones appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Houston. The Jones siblings sought damages for mental anguish and emotional trauma as bystanders after their thirteen-year-old brother, Logan, drowned in a culvert owned by the City. They arrived at the scene after being notified and observed Logan's body being recovered, but not the actual drowning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the siblings did not meet the requirement of a 'sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident' for bystander recovery under Texas law, as established by United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Keith. The court found no analytical difference between this case and a car accident scenario in prior jurisprudence, thereby overuling the Jones siblings' sole issue.

Bystander ClaimsWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressMental AnguishContemporaneous PerceptionAppellate ReviewTexas LawDrowning AccidentTort Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. 01-11-00234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

the City of Houston v. Enrique Guzman

The City of Houston appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction against Enrique Guzman's negligence claims. Guzman had initially sued both the City and its employee, Brent Foltz, after a Houston Police Department patrol car driven by Foltz collided with Guzman's vehicle. Guzman's employer, Harris County, also intervened for subrogated interests, seeking to recover benefits and expenses. The City contended that Guzman's claims were barred by section 101.106(b) of the Texas Tort Claims Act because he initially sued both the governmental unit and its employee. The Court of Appeals, citing its own jurisprudence in similar cases, affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, holding that section 101.106(b) did not bar the suit against the governmental unit under these circumstances.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityNegligence ClaimsElection of RemediesSovereign ImmunitySubrogationWorkers' Compensation ProviderPolice Misconduct
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byrd v. Hall

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating summary judgment motions under Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The case involved Jan Byrd's appeal from a summary judgment granted to Dr. Thomas Hall, Dr. Maxwell Huff, and Dr. David Coffey in a tortious interference with employment claim. The court aimed to establish a clearer summary judgment jurisprudence. After reviewing both state and federal precedents, the court outlined a three-part test focusing on factual disputes, materiality, and genuineness of issues for trial. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's affidavit presented sufficient specific facts to create genuine issues of material fact that required a trial.

Summary JudgmentTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Tortious Interference with EmploymentGenuine Issue of Material FactBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewDirected Verdict StandardFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Judicial PrecedentCivil Procedure
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 25 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