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. 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. 03-11-00352-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
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. 01-09-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2010

Priscilla Celestine v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Priscilla Celestine appealed the dismissal of her petition for adoption and the denial of her motion for a new trial. The case stemmed from the termination of parental rights for four children, with the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) appointed as the sole managing conservator. Celestine, claiming to be a maternal aunt, filed a petition for adoption, which was dismissed by the 313th District Court. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, addressing jurisdictional issues regarding a prior dismissal by another judge and ultimately upholding the trial court's decision based on Celestine's failure to meet the statutory six-month residency requirement for adoption or to demonstrate that a waiver would be in the children's best interest. The court also found the dismissal with prejudice proper as it constituted an adjudication on the merits.

Adoption LawParental Rights TerminationChild CustodyContinuing and Exclusive JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionExchange of Benches DoctrineStanding to SueResidency Requirement for AdoptionWaiver of ConsentBest Interest of the Child
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. 08-04-00026-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Ricardo Corrales and Zulema Frias v. Department of Family and Protective Services

The parents, Ricardo Corrales and Zulema Frias, appealed the termination of their parental rights concerning three of their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. They argued against the admission of police reports as hearsay and the court's failure to appoint the maternal grandmother as managing conservator. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the police reports admissible as cumulative evidence and upholding the jury's decision to name the Department as managing conservator. This decision was based on evidence of the parents' ongoing drug abuse, a history of abuse and neglect, and the grandmother's inability to provide a safe and stable environment for the children, despite her desire to care for them. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that appointing the Department was in the children's best interest.

parental rights terminationchild conservatorshipchild neglectsubstance abuseevidentiary ruleshearsaypublic records exceptionbusiness records exceptionlegal sufficiencyjury verdict
References
27
Case No. 01-11-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2012

L.M. and Y.Y. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This case concerns the termination of parental rights of L.M. and Y.Y. to their three minor children, I.M., L.M., Jr., and T.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the proceedings following allegations of domestic violence by Y.Y. against L.M., including a broken arm and sexual assault, which Y.Y. later recanted. The Department also cited L.M.'s failure to participate in a batterer intervention program. The trial court, incorporating jury findings, terminated parental rights based on findings of endangerment under Family Code subsections 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O). L.M. and Y.Y. appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment findings and that any errors in admitting testimony were harmless.

Parental Rights TerminationDomestic ViolenceChild EndangermentTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewChild Protective ServicesSexual AssaultAbuse of Discretion
References
39
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 6,964 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