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. 01-15-00733-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2016

in the Interest of D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L., Children

Margarita Luna and Jason McDonald appealed a trial court order terminating their parental rights to D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the termination based on allegations of Luna's physical abuse, neglectful supervision, and physical neglect, alongside her history of drug abuse and non-compliance with her family service plan. McDonald's rights were terminated due to his failure to respond to citation and assert paternity for D.R.L. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of Luna's parental rights was in the children's best interest. It also upheld McDonald's termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(1), which does not require a best interest finding for an alleged father who fails to respond to citation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseNeglectPhysical AbuseFamily LawBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Challenge
References
48
Case No. 04-10-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2011

Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., Derra Edwards, Hugh L. Lam, James P. Shee, Cheng-Lein C. Shee, Ricardo Velasquez, Gary M. Maganaris, Robin K. Pang-Maganaris, Dennis E. Gauthier, Cecilia G. Gauthier, Leal Urgin, Dresden & Goldberg Invesco, LLC v. John E. Vogt and Nelda L. Vogt

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in favor of John E. Vogt and Nelda L. Vogt against Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P., and other associated entities. The Vogts' claims included easement encroachment, diversion of surface water, and malicious prosecution. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for injunctive relief and damages, the admission of expert testimony, and the malicious prosecution finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming the awards for past damages and injunctive relief without finding a double recovery. It also upheld the findings related to surface water diversion and malicious prosecution, addressing procedural aspects including a default judgment against a co-defendant, Trada Partners VI, LP.

Easement EncroachmentSurface Water DiversionMalicious ProsecutionProperty RightsAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyTemporary InjunctionPermanent InjunctionDefault JudgmentRule 11 Agreement
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Ex Rel. E & R Construction Co. v. Guy H. James Construction Co.

E & R Construction Co., Inc. sued Guy H. James Construction Company and Federal Insurance Company under the Miller Act for breach of a subcontract related to the Cordell Hull Lock and Dam project. E & R presented twelve claims alleging material interference and breaches of contract by James, leading to increased costs and damages. The court found that James materially breached the contract through various actions, including wrongfully depositing shot rock, requiring extra work, and causing delays, entitling E & R to recover damages on several claims under a *quantum meruit* theory. However, the court denied claims regarding arbitrary dredge limits and dredge delay. The court also clarified that the surety, Federal Insurance Company, was not liable for certain delay and property damage claims.

Construction LawMiller ActSubcontractBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelay DamagesConstruction DisputesFederal CourtContract InterferenceSite Conditions
References
51
Case No. 01-02-01056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

PG&E Texas Pipeline, L.P. v. Harris County Flood Control District & Ramex Construction Co., Inc.

EPGT Texas Pipeline, L.P. (PG&E) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD). PG&E sought damages for pipeline displacement caused by HCFCD's drainage excavation project. The court determined that the Texas Tort Claims Act did not waive HCFCD's sovereign immunity for tort claims, as the damage was caused by an independent contractor. While the Texas Water Code waived immunity for breach of contract, PG&E was not an intended third-party beneficiary. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, strict liability, breach of contract, and declaratory judgment claims. However, it reversed and dismissed without prejudice the inverse condemnation claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the trial court.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent ContractorBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryInverse CondemnationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPipeline DamageDrainage Project
References
46
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2000

Heras v. P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, a general laborer, was injured at a building construction site. The plaintiff sued P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C., the owner and general contractor, and GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp., a subcontractor. P.S. 71 moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff was its employee and thus barred from suing under Workers’ Compensation Law. GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp. also moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not hired until after the accident. The Supreme Court granted P.S. 71's motion and denied GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion. On appeal, the order was reversed; P.S. 71's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint against it reinstated, while GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityWorkers Compensation DefenseRespondeat SuperiorTriable Issue of FactEvidentiary Proof
References
3
Case No. 08-10-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

David Nelson, Individually and D/B/A Collective Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship Collective Contracting, Inc. E. E. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Vernco Construction, Inc.

Vernco Construction, Inc. (Appellee) sued David Nelson and E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Appellants) for multiple claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and various fraud claims. The Appellants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Vernco had assigned its interest in the claims to Jefferson State Bank via a forbearance agreement. The appellate court examined the forbearance agreement, concluding that it unambiguously transferred ownership of the litigation and its proceeds to the bank. This transfer deprived Vernco of any retained interest or standing in the lawsuit. Consequently, the appellate court determined that both the trial court and the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the vacating of the trial court's judgment and the dismissal of the case.

StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionAssignment of ClaimsForbearance AgreementBreach of ContractAppellate JurisdictionTexas Business and Commerce CodeJudicial ReviewCase DismissalVacated Judgment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar sued his employers, Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service, L.L.C., for wrongful termination in violation of the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury. Aguilar claimed a hostile work environment, denial of a pay raise, and being pressured into unpaid FMLA leave, leading to his termination for 'job abandonment' without proper notice. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of retaliation and constructive discharge, concluding there was sufficient evidence that the employers failed to uniformly enforce their absence control policy and showed a causal link between the claim and termination. However, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Exemplary DamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
42
Case No. 08-10-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar, a former employee, sued Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network, L.L.C. for wrongful termination under the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the jury's findings regarding the employer's failure to uniformly enforce its absence control policy, the presence of retaliatory discharge, and constructive termination. However, the court reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationExemplary DamagesTexas Labor CodeFMLAJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 6,702 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