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

Total Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Garcia

Jose Alejo Garcia, a Texas resident, was killed in an industrial accident in Oklahoma while working for Total Oilfield Services, a Texas corporation. His survivors received worker's compensation benefits under Oklahoma law and subsequently sued in Texas for exemplary damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act. The trial court dismissed the action due to Oklahoma's exclusive remedy, but the court of appeals reversed, asserting the extra-territorial effect of the Texas Wrongful Death Act. This court refused the application for writ of error, finding no reversible error in the outcome. However, it disapproved the court of appeals' reasoning that the 'most significant relationship' rule was inapplicable, clarifying that said rule should be applied in such conflict of laws cases.

Wrongful Death ActConflict of LawsMost Significant Relationship TestWorker's CompensationExtra-territorial EffectWrit of ErrorExemplary DamagesSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPer Curiam
References
3
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. 06-14-00115-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2015

Cordero Brown v. State

Cordero Brown appeals his aggravated robbery conviction and sixty-year sentence from the 124th District Court, Gregg County, Texas. Brown argues five issues: Batson challenges to jury strikes, legal insufficiency of evidence for conviction, reversible error in denying an alibi instruction, reversible error in allowing a photo of him with a gun, and reversible error in allowing an undisclosed 911 audio. The State's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, including Brown's participation in selling stolen jewelry and inconsistent witness timings. Brown maintains his innocence, providing an alibi and claiming he was unaware the jewelry was stolen.

Aggravated RobberySufficiency of EvidenceBatson ChallengeAlibi DefenseEvidentiary ErrorUndisclosed EvidenceJury InstructionsCriminal AppealPeremptory StrikesTrial Procedure
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re M.R.R.

The appellant, a juvenile, was charged with capital murder and received a 40-year sentence. The appeal stemmed from the trial court's failure to provide mandatory admonitions under Tex.Fam.Code Ann., Sec. 54.03(b) during the adjudication hearing. Despite the State conceding the error, it argued for harmless error or abandonment of the fundamental error doctrine. The appellate court reaffirmed its precedent, ruling that the omission of these admonitions constitutes fundamental, reversible error that cannot be cured. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Juvenile DelinquencyCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessStatutory AdmonishmentsReversible ErrorTexas Family CodeAppellate ProcedureJuvenile Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borgen v. State

The appellant, Borgen, was convicted of sexual abuse, a conviction that the Houston Court of Appeals subsequently reversed due to unobjected-to improper prosecutorial jury argument during the guilt phase of the trial. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending that the appellant waived any impropriety by failing to object at trial. This court considered whether the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial that it constituted reversible error despite the lack of objection or if due process was violated. The court concluded that while the argument was improper, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal without an objection, distinguishing it from cases where an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other grounds of error.

Prosecutorial MisconductJury ArgumentWaiver of ErrorDue ProcessSexual AbuseCriminal LawAppellate ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsHarmful Error
References
20
Case No. 04-94-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1996

Matter of Mrr

Appellant M.R.R., Jr., a juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing capital murder and received a forty-year determinate sentence. The appellant appealed, alleging the trial court failed to provide the mandatory admonitions required by TEX.FAM.CODE ANN., Sec. 54.03(b) at the adjudication hearing. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, sustained the appellant's point of error, holding that the omission of these admonitions constituted fundamental, reversible error that could not be waived by lack of objection or deemed harmless. The court rejected the State's arguments to abandon the fundamental error doctrine or apply a harmless error analysis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

Juvenile LawDelinquent ConductCapital MurderAdjudication HearingFundamental ErrorDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAdmonitionsReversible ErrorAppellate Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American General Fire & Casualty Co. v. Weinberg

Weinberg, a worker's compensation claimant, had his claim denied by the Industrial Accident Board for untimely filing. He then sued in district court, which granted summary judgment to American General, again for untimely filing. The Court of Appeals reversed, citing an unassigned error regarding American General's procedural failure. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals, stating that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing on unassigned error. It affirmed the trial court's summary judgment because Weinberg's suit was not timely filed, deeming his 'second notice' to a non-Austin office ineffective based on Board rules.

Timely FilingJurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFundamental ErrorIndustrial Accident BoardNotice of AppealStatutory InterpretationProcedural RulesTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. Remling

This Supreme Court of Texas case addresses whether a trial court commits reversible error by considering a social study report not formally introduced into evidence in an adoption proceeding. Petitioners Oliver and Rada Green sought to adopt their nephews and niece, which the trial court granted. Respondents, the paternal grandparents and aunt, appealed, and the court of civil appeals reversed, arguing the lack of cross-examination rights. The Supreme Court reversed the court of civil appeals' judgment, holding that it is not error for a trial court to consider a social study prepared and filed according to the Texas Family Code, as the legislature intended judges to have full access to such reports. The court emphasized the importance of social studies in determining the best interests of the child, provided parties have the opportunity to call the author for examination. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Adoption LawFamily LawSocial Study ReportEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionBest Interests of ChildProcedural Due ProcessCross-Examination RightsStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

James Marcus Gee, an employee of Campbell Soup Company, sustained a leg injury and filed a workers' compensation action against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, alleging a general injury. The trial court sided with Gee, finding total and permanent disability. However, the court of appeals reversed and remanded due to the admission of testimony from previously undisclosed witnesses. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the trial court's error regarding the undisclosed witness testimony, referencing Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(6) and 215(5). The Court concluded that while the trial court erred by admitting the testimony without good cause, it did not constitute reversible error as the testimony was either non-controlling or cumulative. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further consideration of factual insufficiency points.

Undisclosed Witness TestimonyRules of Civil ProcedureGood Cause ExceptionHarmless ErrorReversible Error AnalysisExpert Witness DisclosureDiscovery SanctionsAppellate JurisdictionFactual Sufficiency ReviewWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
14
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,969 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