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. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. 14-20-00511-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

in the Interest of Z.A.R. A/K/A Z.R., a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

This case concerns the appeal of the termination of Mother's parental rights for her son, Z.A.R. (Bobby). The trial court terminated Mother's rights based on findings of child endangerment due to her extensive drug use, unstable housing, and failure to comply with court-ordered reunification services. Mother consistently tested positive for illegal substances and did not maintain stable employment or housing, which led to an environment of uncertainty for Bobby. The child, removed at 1.5 years old and 2.5 at trial, was thriving in foster care and receiving necessary developmental therapies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting both the endangerment findings and that termination was in Bobby's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentSubstance AbuseFamily-Service Plan Non-ComplianceChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFoster CareNeglectful SupervisionDomestic ViolenceUnstable Home Environment
References
29
Case No. 03-13-00258-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2013

R. P. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

R.P. appealed the termination of her parental rights, initially decided by a jury and affirmed by a district judge in Lampasas County. The appeal challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment, parental conduct, compliance with court orders, and the child's best interest. The court focused on whether R.P. knowingly exposed her child to dangerous conditions, citing Robert's history of domestic violence against R.P. even while pregnant and after birth, often in the child's presence. Despite protective orders and services, R.P.'s continued association with Robert and her own volatile behavior raised concerns about her ability to provide a safe environment. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support both the statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child's best interest, affirming the judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDomestic ViolenceChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildFamily CodeAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationChild CustodyTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. 03-22-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. PFLAG, Inc. and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of M.B., a Minor

This appeal concerns temporary injunctions issued against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner. The injunctions prevent DFPS from investigating parents for child abuse solely based on providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, a policy adopted following an Attorney General opinion and Governor's directive. The Court affirmed the injunctions, finding that the appellees (families with transgender children and PFLAG, Inc.) had standing, their claims were ripe and not moot, and sovereign immunity was waived. The court concluded that DFPS's policy constituted an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted without proper procedures, and interfered with fundamental parental and children's constitutional rights.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse investigationAdministrative Procedure ActParental rightsConstitutional rightsStandingRipenessMootnessSovereign immunityTexas law
References
28
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which affirmed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' finding of child neglect against him. This finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, effectively prohibiting his future employment with children. Carrizales initially sought judicial review in the district court, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the basis for his appeal, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Carrizales introduced an argument for an inherent right to judicial review, claiming his constitutional liberty interest in employment was violated. However, the appellate court ruled that this constitutional argument was not preserved in the district court and therefore could not be considered on appeal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carrizales's petition.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeChild NeglectTexas Family CodeAdministrative Procedure ActSubject-Matter JurisdictionLiberty InterestConstitutional ClaimWaiver of IssueAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 11,920 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