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. la-is^aoogo-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

in the Matter of the Marriage of Edsel A. Dixon and Heather D. Dixon, and in the Interest of Ashley Lynn Dixon, a Child

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency filed by EJscrd A. Dixon (Cause Number la-is^aoogo-CV) on April 9, 2015, in Tyler, Texas. The applicant requests a waiver of court fees due to financial hardship, declaring no monthly net income after taxes and no stated amount received from public benefits, despite checking boxes for various entitlements such as SSI, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Dixon's occupation is listed as a Welder/Mechanic for Kentuckiana Real Estate. The affidavit details monthly expenses, including $305.00 for rent, $250.00 for food, and $200.00 for utilities, totaling $755.00. Assets reported include $50.00 in cash and $150.00 in bank accounts, with a total property value of $200.00.

AffidavitIndigencyCourt FeesFinancial HardshipWaiver RequestPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationNotarized Document
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2015

Tom J. Jones, and All Occupants v. Dinh Tran & Sonny & Anna, LLC

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency, also known as a Pauper's Oath or Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs. It is used by a petitioner to request the court to waive court fees, asserting an inability to pay due to indigency or receipt of public benefits. The affidavit requires the petitioner to provide current, complete, and true financial information, including income sources and amounts, public benefits received, dependents, property, debts, and monthly expenses. The document warns that false statements can lead to prosecution and states that the court may conduct a hearing to verify the financial information before approving or denying the request for fee waiver. The case involves I. J. Doubs as the petitioner and Jerry D. Crawford as the respondent, filed in the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, on January 28, 2015.

Affidavit of IndigencyCourt Costs WaiverPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsFee ExemptionTexas Civil ProcedureIndigent LitigantJudicial AdministrationCivil Litigation
References
0
Case No. 13-14-00716-cv
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2015

Victor Quijano, Doing Business as Target Pest Control v. Cameron County, City of Brownsville & Brownsville Independent School District

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency filed by Victor Quijanq, requesting the court to waive court fees due to his inability to pay. He provides detailed financial information including his monthly net income of $1600 as a self-employed individual and $150 in public benefits (SSI, Medicaid). He lists his dependents as Maria Amaya, Estefania Quijano, Jesus Quijano, Juan Quijano, and Ana Quijano, and details his assets (cash, vehicle) and monthly expenses (rent, food, utilities). The form clarifies that the court may or may not approve the request and might require a hearing.

IndigencyCourt FeesAffidavitPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsExpensesDependentsTexas Law HelpCivil Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. 05-15-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Jay Sandon Cooper v. Judge Paul McNulty

Jay Sandon Cooper appealed an order from the 219th Judicial District Court of Collin County, which sustained a contest to his affidavit of indigence. Cooper, appearing pro se, sought to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs, claiming monthly income of $2,586 against expenses averaging $2,704. The trial court found Cooper had sufficient discretionary funds to pay appellate fees, noting he paid no mortgage, rent, or insurance, and a significant portion of his expenses were litigation-related. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas affirmed the trial court's order, concluding there was no abuse of discretion, and directed Cooper to pay for the clerk's and court reporter's records.

indigenceappellate procedureaffidavit contestcourt costspro se litigantfinancial abilitytrial court orderabuse of discretionTexas appellate law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panio v. Sunderland

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Case No. 19-1032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2021

in the Matter of the Marriage of Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval and in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child

This case involves an appeal of a no-answer default judgment in a divorce proceeding between Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval. Angel, the husband, sought a new trial, asserting equitable grounds under the Craddock standard and arguing improper service of process. The trial court initially denied his motion, sustaining a hearsay objection to his affidavit, a decision affirmed by the court of appeals which cited formal defects in the affidavit. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred by rejecting Angel's affidavit as hearsay, clarifying that facts based on personal knowledge are not hearsay. Furthermore, the higher court found that any formal defects in the affidavit's jurat were waived by the opposing party's failure to object at the trial court level, and Angel's affidavit provided a reasonable, uncontroverted explanation for his failure to answer, setting forth a meritorious defense concerning separate property.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock StandardEquitable GroundsService of ProcessHague Service ConventionAffidavit AdmissibilityHearsay ObjectionSeparate Property
References
22
Case No. 2-05-408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2006

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity, and the City of the Colony AND Brandon R. Burns and Juliann Burns, as Guardian for Brandon R. Burns v. Brandon R. Burns and Juliann Burns, as Guardian for Brandon R. Burns, and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, Intervenor AND Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity, and the City of the Colony

Dennis Hong appealed a jury verdict and trial court judgment in a suit stemming from an automobile accident involving Larry Bennett. Hong argued the trial court erred by admitting Bennett’s medical bill affidavits after Hong filed a timely controverting affidavit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 18.001. The appellate court found Hong’s controverting affidavit was sufficient to contest the chiropractic expenses, but not those of a medical doctor, radiologist, or pharmacist. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting both the initial affidavit for chiropractic expenses and the controverting affidavit, rather than requiring expert testimony. Because the jury's damage award was submitted in broad form, it was impossible to ascertain if the award was significantly influenced by the erroneously admitted evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Automobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingMedical Bill AffidavitsControverting AffidavitTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 18.001Reasonableness and Necessity of Medical ExpensesExpert TestimonyAbuse of DiscretionHearsay RuleChiropractic Services
References
26
Case No. No. 03-09-00449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2013

Angelica Mitchell Moore and Kevin Alexander Moore v. Donna M. Brown and Alvin Benard Brown

Angelica Mitchell Moore and Kevin Alexander Moore appealed a district court's judgment denying their request to invalidate termination of their parental rights and an adoption order concerning their child, M.K.B. The Moores had signed affidavits relinquishing their parental rights to Donna M. Brown and Alvin Benard Brown. They argued that their affidavits were void because they were executed less than 48 hours after the child's birth, violating Texas Family Code section 161.103. They also claimed the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and alleged fraud by the Browns. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the Moores' claims were barred by Texas Family Code section 161.211. This section limits direct or collateral attacks on parental rights termination orders based on relinquishment affidavits to issues of fraud, duress, or coercion in the execution of the affidavit, and imposes a six-month deadline for such attacks. The court found that the Moores' complaints regarding the 48-hour rule and UCCJEA did not fall within these permitted grounds and they failed to prove fraud, duress, or coercion in the execution of the affidavits.

Parental Rights TerminationAdoption LawVoluntary Relinquishment AffidavitIrrevocability of AffidavitsTexas Family Code Section 161.211Statutory InterpretationDirect Attack on JudgmentCollateral Attack on JudgmentFraud in ExecutionDuress in Execution
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yax v. Development Team, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability concerning alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order. Regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the defendant successfully raised a triable issue of fact, supported by Angelo Kambitsis's affidavit, suggesting the plaintiff might have been a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court's consideration of Kambitsis's affidavit was deemed a provident exercise of discretion, despite his non-disclosure as a witness, as the plaintiff had prior knowledge of his existence and the defendant offered an excuse for the oversight. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while the defendant's expert affidavit was inadmissible due to non-disclosure, Kambitsis's affidavit was still sufficient to create a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness and adequacy of the worksite conditions.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmanceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseDiscovery RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityAffidavit EvidenceProximate Cause
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 497 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