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. 03-19-00639-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

C.R. Devine, Frances Louise Devine, and C.R. Devine, Inc. v. Doh Oil Company

The Devines, consisting of C.R. Devine, Frances Louise Devine, and C.R. Devine, Inc., appealed from an interlocutory summary judgment order denying Doh Oil Company's third motion for summary judgment. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, evaluated the Devines' petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal. The court has discretion to allow such appeals for orders involving controlling questions of law with substantial grounds for disagreement, which may materially advance litigation termination. However, the Devines failed to demonstrate injury from the order or clearly argue that the certified questions were controlling questions of law with substantial grounds for dispute. Consequently, the court denied the Devines' petition for permissive interlocutory appeal.

Interlocutory AppealSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for DifferencePetition DeniedCivil ProcedurePermissive AppealMotion for Summary JudgmentInjury Requirement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 06-99-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2000

the Travelers Insurance Company v. Ted R. Wilson and Clem C. Martin, D.C.

The Travelers Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict that awarded Ted R. Wilson and his chiropractor, Clem C. Martin, D.C., $120,621.27 for unpaid chiropractic services under a workers' compensation policy. Travelers raised points of error concerning the jury charge's language ('cure or relieve' versus 'cure and relieve'), the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the award amount, and the trial court's preclusion of Dr. John Milani's expert testimony. The appellate court found no reversible error, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationChiropractic CareMedical ExpensesJury InstructionsStatutory InterpretationSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestExpert TestimonyAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2000

Vallance v. Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc.

Anne Marie Vallanee appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc., in her lawsuit alleging wrongful termination for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Vallanee, an intake receptionist, suffered two back injuries and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, leading to her termination due to chronic absenteeism. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding no evidence that her termination was causally linked to filing the claim, as required by Texas Labor Code § 451.001. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that while the employer knew of the claim and terminated her for absenteeism, Vallanee failed to provide sufficient evidence that 'but for' the claim, she would not have been discharged.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal ConnectionChronic AbsenteeismAppellate ReviewLabor LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Case No. 02-15-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

in the Interest of M.C. and A.C., Minor Children

In this case, R.C. appealed the trial court's judgment for S.G. regarding past-due child support. The dispute originated from a 1986 divorce decree ordering R.C. to pay child support, which S.G. sought to collect over two decades later. The trial court initially awarded S.G. $139,976.43, but this order was later set aside, and a new trial was granted. Subsequently, the trial court signed a judgment for S.G. in the amount of $146,437.56, plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs. R.C. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the arrearages calculation and the award of attorney's fees, and also requested a payout schedule. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fees and the decision not to establish a payout schedule, but reversed the amount of child support arrearages, rendering judgment for S.G. in the amount of $104,862.27, which was the amount R.C. had stipulated to.

Child Support ArrearagesFamily LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInterest CalculationAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialWage AssignmentChild Support Enforcement
References
38
Case No. 12-09-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2011

Amanda Chamberlain v. Paul E. Chamberlain and in the Interest of H.N.C., K.M.C., E.R.C. and M.B.C., Children

Amanda Chamberlain appealed the trial court's default final decree of divorce, challenging the denial of her motion for a new trial, the division of community property, child support, medical support, travel expenses, and a geographic restriction on child residency. The appellate court found Amanda failed to meet the 'Craddock' elements to set aside the default judgment, thus affirming the denial of her motion for new trial. However, the court found insufficient evidence presented by Paul Chamberlain to support the division of community estate, child support, medical support, travel expenses, and the geographic restriction. Consequently, the court reversed these specific portions of the divorce decree and remanded them for further proceedings, while affirming the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

divorcedefault judgmentcommunity propertychild supportmedical supportgeographic restrictionfamily lawappellate reviewabuse of discretionCraddock test
References
26
Case No. 01-15-00556-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2015

in the Interest of S. R.- M. C.

R.A.C., Sr. (Appellant) filed an appeal against the Department of Family and Protective Services (Appellee) seeking reversal of a judgment that terminated his parental rights to his child, S.R.-M.C. The initial judgment was entered on June 2, 2015, by the 313th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds, specifically constructive abandonment under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(N) and the finding that termination was in the child's best interest under Section 161.001(2). He contends that the Department did not make reasonable efforts for reunification and that he lacked resources to maintain contact or provide a safe environment. The brief concludes with a prayer for the Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on conservatorship.

child protectionparental rightstermination of parental rightsappealTexas family lawHarris Countyconstructive abandonmentbest interest of childlegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiency
References
15
Case No. 06-14-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

in the Interest of R.L.C., Jr., R.D.C., K.M.S., and A.M.C., Children

Amy Smith's parental rights to her four children were terminated by the trial court due to her extensive history of drug abuse, criminal justice involvement, and neglectful supervision, which endangered her children's physical and emotional well-being. Smith appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court, considering various Holley factors such as Smith's continued drug use, lack of stable housing and income, failure to complete treatment programs, and the children's improved conditions in foster care, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that the evidence was factually sufficient to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbuseBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyTexas Family CodeSubstance Abuse DisorderFoster CareNeglectful SupervisionHolley Factors
References
15
Case No. M2004-00322-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2005

C.R. Batts Const. v. 101 Construction Co.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action filed by C.R. Batts Construction, LLC against 101 Construction Company for unpaid services related to a subcontract for site preparation. The initial dispute stemmed from disagreements over the quantity of rock excavated and the subsequent payments. The trial court found in favor of C.R. Batts, awarding damages of $24,260.11 along with pre-judgment interest. The defendants, 101 Construction and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, appealed this decision, challenging the evidentiary support for the award and the discretion used in granting pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding its implicit factual findings and its discretion in awarding interest, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against these findings.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementSite PreparationExcavation DisputePre-judgment InterestAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityTrial Court DiscretionContract Termination
References
24
Case No. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 6,674 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