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. 01-03-00924-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
35
Case No. 13-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2015

John C. Dempsey A/K/A Jack Dempsey and 401 Gold Consultants v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. D/B/A United States Rare Coin & Bullion Reserve

U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. sued John C. Dempsey for an injunction and money judgment based on a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied Dempsey’s motion to stay arbitration and, after an arbitration award of $1,650,000.00 was entered, confirmed the award despite Dempsey's objections. This appeal argues that the arbitration provision did not cover the specific dispute regarding a breach of contract and liquidated damages, and that USMR waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process for over three years.

Arbitration AgreementNon-Compete ClauseBreach of ContractWaiver of ArbitrationJudicial ProcessAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment MotionInjunctive ReliefLiquidated DamagesTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. 02-19-00168-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

M.B., Individually and as Next Friend of I.C. v. S.C. and Spirit of St. Louis Outlets, GP, LLC

M.B. (Mother), individually and as next friend of I.C., appealed an interlocutory order from the 67th District Court of Tarrant County, which granted S.C.'s (Father) plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Mother's claims for partition, declaratory judgment, and money had and received. Mother's claims stemmed from allegedly undivided community property interests from her 2013 divorce, which she sought to divide in the District Court rather than the 324th District Court (Family Court) that issued the divorce decree. Father argued that the Family Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the post-divorce division of community property. The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth denied Mother's petition for permissive appeal, concluding that the trial court's certified questions were not controlling questions of law because the viability of Mother's claims was unaffected, only the forum for their litigation.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderJurisdictionCommunity PropertyPost-Divorce DivisionFamily LawPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. 10-10-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

Rebecca S., Michael W., and Billy B. appealed a trial court's judgment in Johnson County, Texas, terminating their parental rights to R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S. The jury found grounds for termination, including endangerment due to unstable living conditions, exposure to individuals with histories of abuse/neglect, and the parents' mental deficiencies. The appeals court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to refuse a requested jury charge related to retaining jurisdiction under Section 263.403.

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment
References
11
Case No. 07-15-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

in the Interest of D.E.B., S.B., J.B., Children

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother of D.E.B., S.B., and J.B. The trial court ordered termination of parental rights for S.B. and J.B., but not D.E.B. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of S.B. and J.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, citing the mother's long history of inability to provide for her children's physical and emotional needs, protect them from danger, and successfully complete court-ordered service plans. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding.

Termination of Parental RightsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFamily LawChild NeglectParental UnfitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewDue ProcessTexas Law
References
13
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2015

S.B. ex rel. S.B. v. New York City Department of Education

The case involves plaintiffs S.B. (parent) and E.G. challenging an administrative decision regarding E.G.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The plaintiffs sought tuition reimbursement for E.G.'s unilateral placement in a private school after alleging the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district court reviewed the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) and State Review Officer's (SRO) conflicting decisions. The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion on the IDEA claim, finding procedural and substantive IEP violations and that the proposed public school placement was inappropriate. However, the court denied plaintiffs' claims under the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as no bad faith or gross misjudgment was demonstrated. The defendants' cross-motion was accordingly denied for the IDEA claim and granted for the other claims.

IDEAFAPEIEPTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationDue Process HearingAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActADA
References
42
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 11,930 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