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. 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. 2015-07-0195, 55816-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2018

Love, Sarah v. Delta Faucet Company

In this second interlocutory appeal, the employer challenged the trial court’s decision to grant a continuance to the employee. The employee had requested more time to depose a medical expert, which led the trial court to extend discovery deadlines and the trial date. The employer contended that the trial court abused its discretion, while the employee argued the order was not appealable. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the appeal was properly before them and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the continuance. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Interlocutory AppealContinuance MotionAbuse of Discretion StandardSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiscovery DeadlinesMedical ProofTrial Date ExtensionAppellate ReviewFrivolous Appeals
References
18
Case No. 01-03-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Tami Leigh Steambarge v. Carlos R. Rosario

Tami Leigh Steambarge appeals an agreed order modifying a parent-child relationship, which was rendered against her by default and granted her one hour of supervised visitation per month. She contended that her failure to appear at trial was not intentional or due to conscious indifference because the trial court had granted a continuance and she received no notice of a new trial date. The trial court's order explicitly continued the trial generally without setting a specific date. The appellate court found that Steambarge successfully demonstrated she did not receive proper notice of the non-jury trial on December 11. This met the legal requirements, meaning she was not obligated to prove a meritorious defense or that a new trial would not injure the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Steambarge’s motion for new trial. The order of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Family LawParent-Child RelationshipChild CustodyDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewAgreed Order
References
8
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. 2-05-157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Jason Squyres and Misty Squyres v. Mariano Segura and Lori Segura

This case is an appeal from a trial court’s default judgment concerning a landlord-tenant dispute. The appellants, Jason and Misty Squyers (landlords), challenged the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for conditions precedent and that the trial court erred by denying their motions for continuance and new trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found that the appellants forfeited their right to dispute the conditions precedent due to their general denial. Furthermore, the court determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and new trial motions, citing the appellants' and their counsel's conscious indifference to discovery requests and court orders.

Landlord-tenant disputeDefault judgmentAppealConditions precedentMotion for continuanceMotion for new trialAbuse of discretionConscious indifferenceSecurity depositBreach of contract
References
15
Case No. 04-18-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

One Hundred Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred and 00/100 ($171,100.00) in U.S. Currency and One (1) 2012 Volkswagen Jetta, VIN3VWDP7AJ9CM333910 v. State

This is an appeal from a post-answer default judgment in favor of the State of Texas in a forfeiture case. Appellant Mirsha Contla challenged the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance and the overruling of her motion for new trial by operation of law. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the denial of the motion for continuance, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the motion for new trial, holding that Contla satisfied all three elements of the Craddock test. The court concluded that her failure to appear was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to the State, thus reversing and remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for ContinuanceMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionForfeiture ProceedingsAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTexas LawConscious Indifference
References
20
Case No. 2015-04-0181
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2017

Wright, Carla v. Cookeville Regional Medical Center

This appeal involves an employer’s challenge to the trial court’s grant of a motion to continue the trial date to enable the employee to take additional expert medical testimony. On the eve of trial, the employee argued that she needed an opportunity to re-depose a treating physician in light of the employer’s misrepresentation defense, which was one of numerous defenses asserted by the employer. The trial court granted the employee’s request to continue the trial date, which the employer contends on appeal amounts to an abuse of discretion. We find no error and remand the case.

Continuance GrantAbuse of DiscretionMedical TestimonyMisrepresentation DefenseTrial DateAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationProcedural IssuesDiscretionary DecisionDispute Certification
References
9
Case No. 2019-01-0820 / 64335-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2022

Goodman, Robert v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board heard an interlocutory appeal concerning an employer's motions to compel a second medical examination and to continue a compensation hearing. The trial court had denied the motion to continue, citing the employer's delay in filing despite knowing its intentions prior to agreeing on scheduling deadlines. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, noting the employer waived the only appealable issue by not addressing the denial of the continuance in its brief. Consequently, the Board found the appeal frivolous, serving only to delay proceedings. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine an appropriate award of attorneys' fees and costs associated with the frivolous appeal.

Frivolous appealMotion to compelMotion to continueEmployer's medical examinationWorkers' compensation benefitsAttorney's feesCosts on appealImpairment ratingNeurological problemsTinnitus
References
3
Case No. 2-05-118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

Eugene E. McMeekin v. Heather Marie McMeekin

Eugene E. McMeekin appealed the denial of his motion for continuance and a default judgment in a child support enforcement case initiated by Heather Marie McMeekin. Eugene, who was incarcerated, filed multiple requests for a continuance to obtain counsel, all of which were denied, leading to a $72,074.41 default judgment against him. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting the continuance, as Eugene demonstrated good cause and was harmed by not being present or represented. Additionally, the appellate court identified a lack of evidence in the record to support certain aspects of the judgment rendered. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, final turnover order, and permanent injunction, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Abuse of DiscretionContinuanceDefault JudgmentChild Support EnforcementRight to CounselIncarcerated LitigantPost-Answer Default JudgmentEvidentiary InsufficiencyRemand for New TrialTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 14-14-00968-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

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

This case involves an appeal by the mother (A.S.A.) concerning a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) order from the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The order modified conservatorship and child support in favor of the father (A.A.) of J.O.A., a child. The mother contended the trial court erred by awarding custody to the father, denying her motions for new trial and continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. While the conservatorship issue was deemed moot as J.O.A. had turned 18, the appellate court found a live controversy remained regarding financial obligations. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's motion for new trial, citing her counsel's conscious indifference to the trial setting, and her oral motion for continuance was properly denied for lack of verification. The awards for child support and attorney's fees to the father were also upheld.

Child Support ModificationConservatorship DisputesAppealsDenial of New TrialDenial of ContinuanceParental AlienationBest Interest of ChildTexas Family CodeAttorney's Fees AwardMootness Doctrine
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 15,669 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