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

Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd. v. Gamez

This case involves an appeal by Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd. challenging a trial court's award of approximately $400,000 in guardian ad litem fees and an additional $30,000 in appellate fees. The underlying litigation was a products liability case involving multiple minor plaintiffs, for whom the guardians ad litem were appointed. Goodyear contested the fees, arguing they were excessive, covered work outside the guardians' scope of duties, included work performed after the case settlement, and featured inappropriate billing practices. The appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the reasonableness of the ad litem fees, noting issues like billing for non-essential tasks, duplicate work, and unreasonable time entries (e.g., billing for sleeping or over 24 hours a day). Consequently, the court reversed the award of appellate fees, finding the trial court lacked plenary jurisdiction to modify the judgment. The aggregate ad litem fees portion of the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Guardian Ad LitemAttorney FeesAppellate FeesProducts LiabilityMinor PlaintiffsFee CalculationScope of DutiesExcessive BillingPlenary JurisdictionAbuse of Discretion
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of J.

The case concerns an adoption proceeding initiated by a same-sex couple. The court addresses whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for the adoptive infant, a practice previously common in same-sex adoptions due to their novelty. Citing Matter of Dana, which affirmed the legality of same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couple adoptions, the court found no legal basis to treat same-sex adoptions differently from those by married couples, where a guardian ad litem is not automatically appointed if statutory requirements and social worker reports are favorable. The court concluded that denying equal treatment could violate federal and state equal protection clauses, deciding against appointing a guardian ad litem unless special circumstances are present.

AdoptionSame-sex coupleGuardian ad litemBest interest of childEqual protectionDomestic Relations LawStatutory interpretationCourt of AppealsSurrogate's CourtFamily Law
References
2
Case No. 06-13-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2013

in the Estate of Linda J. Velvin

Appellant, attorney William Demond, appeals the trial court’s assessment of sanctions against him and its denial of attorneys’ fees for his services as attorney ad litem for C.A., a minor, regarding her interests in the Estate of Linda Joyce Velvin, deceased. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court lacked jurisdiction over most issues raised by Demond but had jurisdiction over the sanctions and ad litem attorneys' fees. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's assessment of sanctions against Demond for filing a frivolous and groundless motion to recuse, noting his failure to preserve certain complaints and sufficient evidence to support the finding of unnecessary delay. Regarding ad litem attorneys' fees, the court found Demond failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

SanctionsAttorney Ad LitemEstate LawAppellate ProcedureStandingRecusalAttorneys' FeesDue ProcessTexas Court of AppealsProbate Code
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CELANESE CHEMICAL CO. INC. v. Burleson

This case involves an appeal by Celanese Chemical Company, Inc. from a judgment that ordered it to pay a $100,000 fee to the attorney ad litem representing the minor Burleson children. The original suit stemmed from injuries sustained by Jimmy Lee Burleson, an employee of Mundy Contractors, Inc., at a Celanese facility, with his children seeking damages for loss of consortium. The trial court initially awarded the attorney ad litem the requested $100,000 fee. Celanese contested this amount, arguing it was excessive and lacked sufficient evidentiary support, highlighting the ad litem's reported 150 hours of work and the firm's internal billing of $41,521. The appellate court concluded that the evidence was factually insufficient to justify the $100,000 fee, thus reversing the trial court's judgment regarding the ad litem's fee. Consequently, the court rendered a new judgment, awarding the ad litem $41,521 plus $603.30 in expenses.

Attorney Ad Litem FeeReasonableness of FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyStructured SettlementLoss of Parental ConsortiumMinor PlaintiffsPersonal Injury
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Corp. v. Keenom

This appeal concerns attorneys' fees in a workers' compensation death case where Daniel Keenom died during employment. The appellant, Texas Employers Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.), challenged the trial court's judgment regarding the award of attorneys' fees to Riddle & Williams, P.C., interest calculations on unpaid benefits, and the appointment and compensation of an attorney ad litem, Vaughn Stewart. T.E.I.A. contested the payment of attorneys' fees from a third-party settlement credit, the annual compounding of four percent interest on accrued benefits, and the lump sum payment of attorneys' fees based on undiscounted benefits. Additionally, the appellant argued that the attorney ad litem was unnecessary and his fees were excessive. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all six points of error, affirming the trial court's judgment and finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationAttorneys' FeesThird-Party RecoverySubrogationInterest CalculationLump Sum PaymentAttorney Ad LitemAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Larry F. York// Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas// Cross- Larry F. York

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Andrews

This case involves an appeal in a contentious divorce between James McKay Andrews, M.D. (Husband) and Susie Heasook Cho Andrews (Wife) in Tennessee. The Husband appealed the trial court's awards of alimony, attorney fees, and discretionary costs to the Wife. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's determinations regarding Wife's economic needs, Husband's earning capacity, and the division of marital debt. Despite acknowledging the significant animosity and high legal costs, and the unique roles of the guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the awards.

Divorce LawAlimonySpousal SupportChild CustodyAttorney FeesMarital Estate DivisionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionGuardian Ad LitemAttorney Ad Litem
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dalworth Trucking Co. v. Bulen

The case involves Donnell Bulen and Ricky Bulen, III suing Dalworth Trucking Company and Billy Halbert for the wrongful death of Ricky Bulen, Jr. in a truck collision. The jury awarded $1.3 million in compensatory damages against both defendants and $1 million in punitive damages against Dalworth for gross negligence. The appeals court addressed contentions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages, the excessiveness of the punitive award, the validity of Donnell Bulen's common law marriage claim, and the attorney ad litem's fee. The court affirmed the judgment regarding compensatory and punitive damages and the common law marriage finding. However, it found the $100,000 attorney ad litem fee excessive and modified the judgment to reduce it to $40,000, affirming the judgment as modified.

Wrongful DeathTruck CollisionGross NegligencePunitive DamagesCommon Law MarriageAttorney Ad Litem FeeSufficiency of EvidenceExcessive DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 5,289 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