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

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

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

Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez

This case clarifies the nature and scope of the wrongful termination cause of action recognized in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck. Martinez, a truck driver for Safeshred, was fired for refusing to drive unsafe and illegal loads despite repeated orders. The core issue was whether a Sabine Pilot action allows punitive damages and, if so, under what conditions, particularly regarding the definition of malice. The Court held that a Sabine Pilot claim sounds in tort and allows punitive damages upon proper proof of malice related to the firing itself, not the illegal act requested. However, the Court found Martinez failed to present legally sufficient evidence of malice in his firing, thus reversing the award of exemplary damages while affirming other aspects of the court of appeals' judgment.

Wrongful terminationSabine Pilot claimPunitive damagesExemplary damagesMaliceAt-will employment doctrineTort lawContract lawEmployee rightsWorkplace safety
References
36
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

Cresencio Bastida v. Abel's Mobile Home Service, Inc.

Cresencio Bastida appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Richard Aznaran on claims of negligence, gross negligence, and malice. Bastida was electrocuted while working to install a mobile home on Aznaran's ranch. The appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Aznaran's supervisory control over Bastida's work, which could establish a duty of care for both negligent activity and premises defect claims. Consequently, the summary judgment on the negligence, gross negligence, and malice claims was reversed, and those claims were remanded for further proceedings, while the summary judgment on other related claims was affirmed.

NegligenceGross NegligenceMaliceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorDuty of CareSupervisory ControlFact IssueAppellate Review
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1960

Gale v. Spriggs

This case involves an appeal concerning a breach of a written construction contract for a home addition. Plaintiffs, Spriggs and his wife, sued the building contractor for failing to perform in a good and workmanlike manner, leading to a depreciation in their home's value. A jury initially awarded the plaintiffs $4200, including $1500 in exemplary damages for malice. The contractor appealed, challenging the discovery process, the exemplary damages award, and a special issue submission. The appellate court affirmed the findings of poor workmanship but reversed the award for exemplary damages, concluding there was no evidence of malice. Consequently, the judgment was reformed, reducing the total award to $2700.

Breach of contractConstruction defectExemplary damagesMaliceProperty valueAppellate reviewJury verdictDiscoveryCivil procedureTexas law
References
13
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

Hoesten v. Best

Plaintiff Raymond J. Hoesten, a former stage manager, sued Constance Best, an AFTRA executive assistant, and AFTRA for defamation and tortious interference after his termination by ABC. Hoesten alleged Best's statements about his workplace conduct led to his dismissal. The court addressed whether some claims were time-barred, if federal labor law preempted state claims, and if actual or common-law malice was proven. The appellate court ruled that claims prior to July 1998 were time-barred, federal law partially preempted state defamation claims, and Hoesten failed to demonstrate malice. Ultimately, the court dismissed the complaint against both Best and AFTRA.

DefamationTortious InterferenceFederal Labor Law PreemptionActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeStatute of LimitationsSingle Publication RuleUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkplace Misconduct
References
42
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
Showing 1-10 of 161 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