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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
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. 03-22-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2023

Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

Jonathan Timothy Noyes appeals a lifetime protective order issued against him for the protection of his ex-girlfriend, Samantha Jo Voges. Noyes challenged the order on five grounds, asserting the district court failed to make required fact findings, that the evidence was insufficient, that his communication was constitutionally protected speech, that the underlying harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague, and that the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence. The State filed an application for a protective order after Voges reported thousands of threatening text messages, calls from blocked and spoofed numbers, and social media harassment from Noyes following their breakup. Voges testified about Noyes's controlling behavior, physical altercations, and fear for her safety due to threats to ruin her life, disclose private information, and access her accounts. A detective's investigation confirmed Noyes sent over 1,500 messages, used multiple numbers and emails, installed a tracking device on Voges's car, and attempted to access her bank account, leading to his arrest for stalking. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Voges was a victim of stalking, thus upholding the protective order.

StalkingProtective OrderHarassmentElectronic CommunicationDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFirearm Prohibition
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1985

In Re Continental Air Lines, Inc.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court addressed a motion for summary judgment concerning a claim by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) for $144,838,027 in Labor Protective Provisions (LPP) benefits. ALPA argued that its members were "dismissed" following Continental Air Lines' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in 1983, a situation allegedly "due to and resulting from" the 1981 acquisition of Continental by Texas International Airlines. Bankruptcy Judge T. Glover Roberts found that Continental did not "deprive" pilots of employment but rather sought to continue their employment, and that any non-continuation was a voluntary choice by pilots or due to ALPA's strike. The court further concluded that LPPs were not intended to apply to bankruptcy-related changes in employment, citing precedent where the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) consistently refused to impose LPPs on bankrupt carriers. Ultimately, the court determined that Continental's bankruptcy was primarily caused by deregulation and high labor costs, not the 1981 acquisition, and therefore granted the Debtors' motion for summary judgment, estimating ALPA's claim at zero.

BankruptcyLabor Protective ProvisionsAirline Deregulation ActSummary JudgmentChapter 11Employee ClaimsAcquisitionMergerCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Protection Program
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Varde Investment Partners, L.P. v. Comair, Inc. (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

This case involves speculative investors, the plaintiffs, seeking to revoke the Comair debtors' Chapter 11 Joint Plan of Reorganization, confirmed on April 25, 2007. They allege fraud in the plan's procurement, specifically that the debtors failed to update claims estimates in their Disclosure Statement, leading to an overestimation of creditor recovery. The reorganized debtors/defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding it impossible to comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1144(1) by protecting good-faith reliant entities given the plan's substantial consummation. Additionally, the court cited the doctrine of equitable mootness, emphasizing the impracticality of undoing the complex transactions that have occurred since confirmation.

BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationFraudMotion to DismissDisclosure StatementClaims EstimatesEquitable MootnessConfirmation OrderCreditor VotingAdversary Proceeding
References
61
Case No. 03-11-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2012

Brian Hunt v. State of Texas for the Protection of K. C.

Brian Hunt appealed a family-violence protective order issued against him, challenging the trial court's failure to reschedule a hearing, denial of his right to confront his accuser, finding of a familial relationship with K. C., and the basis of the protective order on alleged false statements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that Hunt waived his procedural rights by not attending the hearing. The court further found that K. C.'s uncontroverted testimony provided legally sufficient evidence to establish dating violence, which constitutes family violence under Texas law, thus supporting the protective order. Hunt's claims of false allegations lacked evidentiary support in the record and were therefore overruled.

Family ViolenceProtective OrderDue ProcessRight to ConfrontationDating ViolenceSufficiency of EvidenceDefault JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyPro Se Litigation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luttrell

The Chapter 7 Trustee, Ann Mostoller, objected to the Debtor's claim of exemption for $150,000 received under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). The Debtor, widow of a Department of Energy employee, received these benefits due to her husband's occupational illness (lung cancer) as a 'covered employee' under EEOICPA. The Trustee argued that the Tennessee exemption statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-111(1)(C)) applied only to the individual suffering the illness, not to a dependent. The court disagreed, finding that the EEOICPA benefits, like social security and veterans' benefits, vest in surviving spouses and fall within the scope of protections intended by the Tennessee General Assembly. Therefore, the court overruled the Trustee's objection, allowing the Debtor to exempt the entire $150,000.

BankruptcyExemptionChapter 7Occupational Illness Compensation Program ActEEOICPAEnergy EmployeesSurvivor BenefitsDisability BenefitsState ExemptionsFederal Exemptions
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,929 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