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. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. C-179715
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Bullock

Relators filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Larry Thorne of the 317th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an adoption order for C.A.T.B. Previous litigation in Brazos County had seen Castro's parental rights terminated, then later reinstated via a bill of review, which consequently voided Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The relators contended that the orders granting the bill of review and setting aside the adoption were void due to statutory six-month limitations under the Texas Family Code. However, the appellate court denied the writ, ruling that these statutory requirements were not jurisdictional prerequisites and the defense was waived by not being timely asserted in the original bill of review hearing. Therefore, the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the reinstatement of the termination and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AdoptionWrit of MandamusJudicial DiscretionJurisdictional PrerequisitesStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DefenseBill of ReviewFamily Law TexasChild Reunification
References
17
Case No. 03-02-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated v. State of Texas Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas And Jose Montemayor, Insurance Commissioner of Texas

Appellants Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated appealed a trial court's judgment concerning the disclosure of certain records under the Public Information Act. The case originated from a request for information made to the Texas Department of Insurance related to appellants' applications for certification as Independent Review Organizations (IROs). The Attorney General had previously ruled that the requested information, including reviewer lists, contracts, and compensation, could not be withheld. Appellants argued that the information was 'confidential by law' and also excepted from disclosure under the commercial or financial information clause of the PIA. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that appellants failed to meet their burden to prove an exception to disclosure applied.

Public Information ActDisclosure of RecordsIndependent Review OrganizationsConfidentialityCommercial InformationFinancial InformationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewInjunctive ReliefAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volcanic Gardens Management Co. v. Paxson

Volcanic Gardens Management Co., Inc., as Relator, sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial judge to vacate a protective order and grant a motion to compel discovery. The Relator aimed to discover communications between Eddie Flores, the real party in interest, and his former attorney, Eduardo Lerma, concerning an alleged fraudulent claim. Flores had a prior knee injury in 1987 and later claimed a new injury at Wet 'N' Wild in 1989, leading Volcanic Gardens to allege conspiracy and fraud by attributing older injuries to the recent incident. Lerma had previously indicated in interrogatories that he believed Flores's claim was fraudulent, prompting the trial judge to grant Flores's protective order, blocking discovery. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of the crime/fraud exception to attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the writ was conditionally granted, instructing the trial court to vacate the protective order and conduct the necessary in camera review.

Writ of MandamusProtective OrderMotion to CompelAttorney-Client PrivilegeCrime-Fraud ExceptionPrima Facie ShowingIn Camera InspectionAbuse of DiscretionDiscovery DisputeLegal Ethics
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. 14-04-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2004

in Re: Reynolds Metal Company

Relator Reynolds Metals Company sought a writ of mandamus against the Judge of the 212th District Court to vacate an order compelling discovery production in an underlying premises and products liability suit brought by Gabriel and Virginia Salais. Reynolds Metals argued the discovery requests were overbroad and irrelevant due to a lack of reasonable time limitations for Salais's alleged exposure period. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals agreed, finding the trial court abused its discretion by ordering overly broad discovery without imposing reasonable limits. The court also determined that Reynolds Metals had no adequate appellate remedy. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, with the trial court directed to vacate its order and review the discovery requests individually.

Discovery disputeMandamusOverbreadthDiscovery requestsAbuse of discretionAppellate remedyTexas lawCivil procedureTrial court orderPremises liability
References
9
Case No. 13-04-00550-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

in Re: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.

Linda Garcia, a truck driver for Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., was injured in a vehicular accident and subsequently terminated. Mission deemed the accident 'major preventable' and terminated Garcia under company policy. Garcia sued Mission, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Mission moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement within its employee health and safety plan, which the trial court denied. Mission then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition, concluded the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration, and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its order.

Arbitration AgreementWrit of MandamusWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawInterstate CommerceTruck DriverMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 01-08-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

Expo Motorcars, LLC. v. Harris County Appraisal District, Harris County Appraisal Review Board

Expo Motorcars, L.L.C. challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and Harris County Appraisal Review Board. Expo contested the constitutionality and application of Texas Tax Code sections 23.121(b) and 41.44(a)(1) regarding the valuation of its motor vehicle inventory for tax years 2004 and 2005. Expo argued it was denied meaningful due process review, presented uncontradicted evidence of actual value, and claimed the statutory formula violated the Texas Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Expo's protest was untimely for 2004, the valuation method correctly used previous year's sales, and the tax code sections were constitutional as applied to Expo.

property taxmotor vehicle inventoryappraisaldue processTexas Tax Codeconstitutional challengesummary judgmenttax valuationstatutory interpretationappeal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,223 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