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. 12 Civ. 3763(AJN)
Regular Panel Decision

R.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs R.B. and M.L.B., parents of D.B., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. The State Review Officer (SRO) had previously affirmed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, which found D.B.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for D.B.'s enrollment in a private school, challenging the IEP's procedural and substantive adequacy and the appropriateness of the DOE's assigned school placement. The District Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and the assigned school appropriate, thereby denying tuition reimbursement.

Education LawIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerDue Process ComplaintTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentProcedural Adequacy
References
25
Case No. M2002-02242-COA-R3-CV, 3300DV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2004

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.

This case involves a child custody dispute where the mother, B. M. M., and father, P. R. M., initially had a parenting plan granting the mother primary residential parent status with supervised visitation for the father due to the mother's sexual abuse concerns. The father petitioned for unsupervised visitation, and the mother sought to relocate to Florida with their daughter. The trial court denied the mother's relocation and granted the father unsupervised visitation, prompting the mother to defy the order by moving to Florida. Consequently, the father was granted emergency custody, the mother was found in criminal contempt, and was ordered to pay the father's private investigator fees and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions, concluding that the trial court correctly found no basis for the mother's sexual abuse allegations and that her actions were detrimental to the child's well-being and relationship with the father.

Child CustodyParental RelocationSupervised VisitationCriminal ContemptParental AlienationSexual Abuse AllegationsBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstancesAttorney's FeesPrivate Investigator Fees
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Kalim Ahmed filed a lawsuit against the INS in February 1993, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a work authorization card, claiming he had applied for temporary resident status as a Special Agricultural Worker. The INS moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), noting Ahmed's non-responsiveness to discovery requests and the motion itself. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Ahmed failed to demonstrate a clear right to the requested relief, thus lacking mandamus jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court found sufficient grounds to dismiss the case with prejudice due to Ahmed's prolonged and extensive inactivity, constituting a failure to prosecute his claim diligently.

MandamusJurisdictionFailure to ProsecuteImmigration LawWork AuthorizationTemporary Resident StatusSpecial Agricultural Worker ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDismissalJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lerner v. FNB Rochester Corp.

This is a shareholder class action brought by Paul Lerner against First National Bank of Rochester, its corporate parent FNB Rochester Corp., certain former directors and officers, their former law firm, and Yapi Ve Kredi Bankasi A.S. The plaintiff alleged securities fraud, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding FNBR's financial health, particularly concerning its loan portfolio and a terminated merger agreement with Yapi. Claims were filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, along with common law claims. The court granted the motions to dismiss from all defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Consequently, the Amended Complaint and pendent common law claims were dismissed with prejudice, without leave to replead.

Securities FraudShareholder Class ActionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Corporate MismanagementBanking IndustryLoan LossesFailed MergerDuty to Disclose
References
16
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roebuck v. Guttman

Plaintiffs alleged that they were defrauded by defendants in the purchase of limited partnership units in Visual Enterprises. Defendants Martin L. Goldstein, Martin A. Halpern, Goldstein & Halpern, Allan T. Cannon, and Allan T. Cannon, P.C. moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing a failure to state fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court found that plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting an inference that the G & H and Cannon defendants knowingly participated in the fraudulent misstatements or omissions. Additionally, the court determined that claims under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were time-barred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and directed the entry of a final judgment, certifying it for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to promote judicial economy.

FraudSecurities FraudLimited PartnershipMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 54(b) CertificationStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionCivil ProcedureMisrepresentation
References
14
Case No. NO. 14-19-00384-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-40587)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2021

in the Interest of I.D.R., and A.B.R., Children

This appeal originates from a suit to establish a parent-child relationship concerning I.D.R. and A.B.R., initiated by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. The trial court entered a default judgment against Rejadia Rogers, the mother, for failing to appear, adjudicating issues of child support, custody, and access rights. Mother's motion for a new trial was subsequently denied. On appeal, Mother argued that her failure to appear was not intentional due to car trouble and medical complications, and she presented a meritorious defense. The appellate court, applying the Craddock test, found that Mother satisfied all three elements, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentParent-Child RelationshipChild SupportChild CustodyAccess RightsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseUnintentional Failure to Appear
References
20
Case No. 02-12-00141-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2012

in the Interest of S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., the Children

This case involves an appeal by a mother against the termination of her parental rights to her two children, S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., by the 431st District Court of Denton County. The Second District of Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The termination was based on grounds of endangering conduct due to the Mother's extensive history of drug abuse, including prescription medications and illegal drugs, which led to S.B.G.-R. being born addicted and multiple removals of the children by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Mother's challenges regarding jury instructions on wealth and the attorney ad litem's representation of S.I.-M.G. were overruled, with the appellate court finding no error in the lower court's decision.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbusePrescription Drug AddictionChild WelfareAppellate ReviewBest Interest of ChildSubstance Abuse TreatmentProbation ViolationJury Instructions
References
47
Case No. NO. 12-03-00298-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2005

Joann Ham Longoria, F/K/A Joann Musick Ham v. Bob Whitehurst, Individually and D/B/A White & Whitehurst, Brenda K. Hicks, Individually and D/B/A Hicks & Hicks, and Sam R. Hicks, Individually and D/B/A Hicks & Hicks

Joann Ham Longoria appealed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of her former attorneys, Bob Whitehurst, Brenda K. Hicks, and Sam R. Hicks. Longoria sued her attorneys for claims including breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and misrepresentation, stemming from their representation in a worker’s compensation retaliation suit. Her main complaint was that the attorneys did not explain the present value of her settlement was less than $200,000, despite the total exceeding $203,000. The trial court granted summary judgment for the attorneys, ruling that Longoria's claims were essentially legal malpractice, subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which she missed. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the claims constituted legal malpractice and were barred by the statute of limitations.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyMisrepresentationBreach of ContractProfessional NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
16
Case No. 14-02-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2002

in Re: R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc.

The relator, R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc., sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Elizabeth Ray of the 165th District Court of Harris County to vacate parts of a discovery order. The underlying suit involves Louis Zetka, a Jones Act seaman, who sued R&B Falcon for alleged personal injury and maintenance and cure. R&B Falcon ceased maintenance and cure payments, citing Zetka's alleged misrepresentations during a pre-hiring medical exam. Zetka then sought broad discovery regarding R&B Falcon's handling of maintenance-and-cure claims for other employees, which the trial court largely granted. The appellate court found the compelled discovery irrelevant and overly broad, and thus R&B Falcon had no adequate remedy by appeal. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the trial court to vacate the objectionable parts of the discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeMaritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CurePre-employment Medical ExamAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsReal Party in Interest
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 10,372 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