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

Taylor v. Taylor

Valerie Annette Taylor filed for divorce against her incarcerated husband, Richard Owen Taylor, with the Attorney General intervening to enforce child support. Richard's requests for a jury trial and a bench warrant to appear in person were denied by the trial court. The trial court proceeded with a bench trial, granted the divorce, made Valerie sole managing conservator, and ordered Richard to pay child support. Richard appealed, arguing the denial of his requests constituted an abuse of discretion and a violation of his due process rights. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Richard an alternative means to participate in the trial, which prevented him from presenting his case. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

DivorceChild SupportIncarcerationJury TrialBench WarrantDue ProcessRestricted AppealAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family Law
References
67
Case No. 13-10-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2012

Christopher Braglia v. Kenneth Shea Middleton

Appellant Christopher Braglia appeals a bench-trial judgment in favor of appellee Kenneth Shea Middleton. Braglia and Middleton had a verbal service agreement for concrete jobs, which Middleton alleged was substandard. Middleton sued Braglia for breach of contract, and Braglia filed a pro se counterclaim for money owed. Middleton filed a notice of nonsuit, then withdrew it on the day of trial. The trial court denied Braglia's request for a continuance and proceeded with a bench trial, resulting in a judgment for Middleton. Braglia appealed, arguing errors regarding the nonsuit withdrawal, denial of his motion for new trial, and unpled claims. The Court reversed the judgment on Middleton's claims due to lack of proper notice to Braglia but affirmed the denial of Braglia's motion for new trial concerning his counterclaim.

Bench TrialNonsuitWithdrawal of NonsuitMotion for New TrialContinuance DeniedDue ProcessLack of NoticeAbuse of DiscretionReversalRemand
References
19
Case No. 11-10-00333-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2011

in the Interest of J.A.M., a Child

This case concerns the termination of a mother's parental rights to her son, J.A.M., after the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed an original petition due to the mother's drug usage. The mother, referred to as appellant, was incarcerated when the trial court conducted a bench trial and subsequently terminated her parental rights. She appealed, claiming she was deprived of due process by the trial court's denial of a bench warrant and a motion for extension to appear and present evidence of positive changes. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no due process violations and no abuse of discretion in denying the extension, noting the mother had alternative means to present her position.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessBench WarrantExtension of TimeIncarcerated ParentChild ProtectionFamily LawTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
9
Case No. 02-09-00272-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2011

Lori Rosenstein v. Howard Rosenstein

Lori Rosenstein appealed a divorce decree, challenging the trial court's decisions regarding a bench trial conducted in her absence, child possession based on religious holidays, and child support calculations. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's handling of the bench trial and child support. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment concerning child possession. It held that granting one parent superior possession rights tied to specific religious holidays, without evidence of the other parent's religious practices being illegal or immoral, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied through the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision underscores the principle of governmental neutrality between religions in child custody matters.

DivorceChild CustodyChild SupportEstablishment ClauseFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentReligious FreedomParental RightsJudicial DiscretionAbuse of Discretion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Case No. 14-22-00828-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

BDFI, LLC v. Boxer Property Management Corporation

BDFI, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment in favor of Boxer Property Management Corporation. BDFI argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motions for continuance and its motion for new trial, and by dismissing the jury panel to conduct a bench trial. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying continuances due to insufficient cause and unpreserved arguments. Additionally, BDFI failed to set up a meritorious defense for the motion for new trial, and waived its right to a jury trial by not appearing for trial.

Post-answer default judgmentMotion for continuanceMotion for new trialJury trial waiverBreach of contractTrial court discretionAppellate reviewCivil procedureMeritorious defenseTexas law
References
26
Case No. 03-15-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2015

E. T. and T. T. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

E.T. and T.T. appealed the trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their children after a bench trial, alleging several abuses of discretion. They contended the court improperly allowed their attorney to withdraw, terminated rights without notice of trial, denied motions for continuance, and denied a motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals found that the appellants had waived their objection to attorney withdrawal and had received actual notice of the trial. Furthermore, their motions for continuance and new trial lacked sufficient evidentiary support or were untimely. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order of termination.

Parental RightsTerminationBench TrialMotion to WithdrawAttorney WithdrawalNotice of TrialDue ProcessMotion for ContinuanceMotion for New TrialCraddock Test
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deblo, Inc. v. State

This case is an appeal from a trial court order granting a temporary injunction against appellants for maintaining a public nuisance at 166 West Mount Houston, Harris County, Texas. The trial court found appellants were using the property for prostitution and ordered it closed or a $5,000 bond posted. Appellants argued that padlocking premises is only permissible after a trial on the merits, not a temporary order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that an alternative (posting a bond) was offered and the injunction only prevented illegal use, not legitimate use of the property. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact regarding the property being used for prostitution.

Nuisance AbatementTemporary InjunctionPublic NuisanceProstitutionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court OrderPadlocking OrderBond RequirementFactual Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 14,319 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