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. 11-11-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2013

Michelle Smith v. Richard Lee Killion, Killion Investments, Inc., and Killion Partners

This case involves a dispute over adjoining rural properties in Stephens County, Texas, between Michelle Smith (Appellant) and Richard Lee Killion, Killion Investments, Inc., and Killion Partners (Appellees). Smith initially sued for trespass and to quiet title to mineral interests and challenged a water pipeline easement. Appellees counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment for property rights and asserting an easement by estoppel, implication, or prescription. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, establishing a prescriptive easement and awarding attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court remanded the mineral interest issue because the trial court had not disposed of it, modified the judgment to delete appellate attorneys' fees due to a lack of evidence of their reasonableness or necessity, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on the pipeline easement, finding no error in the prescriptive easement declaration despite Smith's claim of abandonment by nonuse.

Real PropertyEasement DisputeSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Attorneys' FeesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleQuiet Title ActionDeclaratory JudgmentAbandonment of EasementPrescriptive Easement
References
26
Case No. 13-23-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

John William Johnson v. Town of Fulton

Appellant John William Johnson challenged a permanent injunction issued in favor of Appellee Town of Fulton, arguing errors in subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. Fulton had sought injunctive relief against Johnson for obstructing Casterline Drive, a public right-of-way, and also requested declarations concerning nuisance and abandonment of an easement. Johnson contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the easement boundaries due to conflicting surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment, finding no material fact issue concerning the easement. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Fulton, concluding that the declaratory relief obtained was duplicative of the injunctive relief and appeared to be solely a vehicle for recovering fees.

Road obstructionPublic right-of-wayPermanent injunctionSummary judgmentSubject matter jurisdictionAttorney's feesDeclaratory judgmentEasement disputeProperty boundariesTexas Government Code
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2008

In re Jacob WW.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother's parental rights due to abandonment of her three children. The children were placed in foster care, and despite attempts by a caseworker to facilitate contact, the mother failed to visit or communicate with her children or the agency for the statutory six-month period. Although the mother's mother arranged a few brief family gatherings, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding that these sporadic contacts were insufficient to prevent a finding of abandonment. The court also noted the children's positive adjustment to foster care and the foster parents' desire to adopt, supporting the termination of parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFoster Care PlacementFamily Court AppealSchuyler CountySocial Services Law § 384-bVisitation RightsDue DiligenceClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08137
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Matter of Dakota W. (Kimberly X.)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court of Broome County's order terminating the parental rights of Kimberly X. and Chad W. for abandoning their three children. The parents appealed, citing due process violations due to their absence from the fact-finding hearing and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the parents voluntarily absented themselves, and their legal representation was adequate. Furthermore, the court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding of abandonment, as the parents failed to visit or communicate with their children or the petitioning agency during the six-month statutory period. Therefore, the Family Court's decision to transfer guardianship and custody to the Broome County Department of Social Services was upheld.

abandonmentparental rights terminationdue processfoster carefact-finding hearingappellate reviewsocial services lawchildren's rightsclear and convincing evidencevisitation rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noell v. City of Carrollton

This dispute involves claims by homeowners in the Air Park Dallas community against a real estate developer, the zoning committee, and the City of Carrollton. The City ordered the airpark's airport closed after annexing a portion of it and passing an ordinance. Homeowners sued the developer and zoning committee for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements, and sued the City challenging the ordinance and closure order. Noell, a homeowner and minority owner of the developer, also challenged the ordinance. The trial court invalidated the closure order and granted relief to homeowners. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidation of the closure order, reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, and remanded some claims to the trial court. It also modified part of the injunctive relief against the developer and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Airpark CommunityEasement RightsMunicipal ZoningNuisance AbatementDue ProcessConstitutional LawContract BreachFiduciary DutyProperty RestrictionsOrdinance Vagueness
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. Walther

Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent parcels of property in Schoharie County. A dispute arose regarding defendants' use of a pipeline across plaintiff's property to access water from a pond, a practice that had existed since at least 1964. Plaintiff commenced an action challenging defendants' claimed easement rights and seeking damages for trespass, while defendants asserted various counterclaims including express and implied easements. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, dismissing defendants' counterclaims, finding the express easement extinguished by common ownership and insufficient necessity for an implied easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the express easement claims but reversed the dismissal of the implied easement and damages counterclaims, citing unresolved material issues of fact regarding the reasonable necessity of the easement.

EasementImplied EasementExpress EasementCommon OwnershipProperty DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal PropertyPipeline AccessWater Rights
References
13
Case No. 04-24-00757-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC D/B/A Firefly Partners Land, LLC v. Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling

This case involves an appeal by Luckenbach Ranch, LLC and Firefly Partners, LLC from a final judgment recognizing and defining a road easement in favor of Troy Bowling and Kim Bowling. The dispute originated from a 2019 private road maintenance agreement between Wendy Williams (seller of a portion of land to the Bowlings and later the remainder to Luckenbach) and the Bowlings. The appellants argued that the agreement violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient description of the easement and that the scope of the easement was too narrow. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the agreement sufficiently identified the servient estate for the express easement and that the language 'access and maintain road entry for easement purposes' was sufficient to grant a road easement. The court also addressed the relocation of the easement's entrance, noting it was declared in the final judgment following a bench trial where Luckenbach stipulated to the move.

Easement LawStatute of FraudsExpress EasementEasement by EstoppelEstoppel by DeedProperty LawReal EstateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoad Easement
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milligan v. Niebuhr

Gene Milligan appealed a trial court's ruling that an easement he held across land owned by his ex-spouse, Marilisa Niebuhr, was terminated by their 1995 divorce decree. Milligan had purchased an 8.98-acre tract ("Peach Orchard") with an easement across Lot 13 for river access. Niebuhr later purchased Lot 13, and they married and divorced. The divorce decree awarded Lot 13 to Niebuhr and the Peach Orchard to Milligan, explicitly divesting each of all rights, title, and interest in the property awarded to the other. Milligan continued using the easement, leading to a dispute. The trial court found the easement terminated, and the appellate court affirmed, interpreting the agreed divorce decree as a contract that unambiguously divested Milligan of any interest in Lot 13, including the easement, as an easement is an interest in the servient estate.

EasementDivorce DecreeContract InterpretationProperty DivisionReal Estate LawAppellate ReviewServient EstateDominant EstateAbandonment of EasementInjunctive Relief
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 1990

In re Siami D.

The Family Court in New York County terminated the parental rights of the respondent on September 4, 1990, finding that she had abandoned her children. This determination was based on clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to communicate with the children for at least six months prior to the petition's filing. The court held that the respondent's incarceration during this period did not excuse her failure to establish contact through a third party or by letter. The Family Court's decision, which credited the agency case record over the respondent's testimony regarding attempts to contact the petitioner, was unanimously affirmed on appeal without costs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFamily LawAppellate AffirmationIncarcerationCommunication with ChildClear and Convincing EvidenceAgency RecordJudicial CredibilityFamily Court Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 386 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