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

Clark v. Jamison

This case concerns an appeal filed by William Thomas Clark against Martha Hill Jamison, challenging the denial of his motion to decrease child support payments. Clark argued that his financial circumstances had substantially changed and that the existing support was not in compliance with guidelines. The trial court denied the modification, finding that the children's needs had not decreased and Clark's financial resources remained substantial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in maintaining the child support order.

Child Support ModificationParental ObligationFinancial CircumstancesBest Interest of the ChildAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family LawChild Support GuidelinesMaterial Change in CircumstancesAgreed Order
References
21
Case No. No. 10-07-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2008

SSHG, LLC D/B/A Support Services Holdings Group and Legacy Support Services, LTD. v. Eric Ian Lewis

Eric Ian Lewis, an employee of SSHG, LLC, was injured on the job while using an electric hand planer. He sued his employer, a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, for negligence. A jury found for Lewis, and SSG appealed the judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of obvious dangers and that Lewis's own negligence caused the injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the danger of using the planer on small pieces of wood without a jig was not obvious or commonly known to Lewis, thus SSG owed a duty to train and warn. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against SSG.

Workplace NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplacePower Tool InjuryWorker's Compensation NonsubscriberProximate CauseContributory Negligence (defense denied)Jury Verdict AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership D/B/A Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Alfonso Ventura and Maria Ventura

Alfonso and Maria Ventura filed a wrongful foreclosure suit against Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership d/b/a Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. after their homestead was sold due to an unpaid tax lien note. The Venturas alleged the appellants failed to properly account for surplus funds and raised additional claims of fraud, usury, and failure to account. Appellants, despite being served and making a general appearance through a Rule 11 agreement, failed to file an answer and did not appear for trial, leading to a post-appearance default judgment against them for $66,958 plus attorney's fees. Appellants' motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Appellants failed to prove their absence was not due to conscious indifference and that the record supported the damages award.

Wrongful ForeclosureDefault JudgmentPost-Appearance DefaultMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseRule 11 AgreementDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureDamages
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majekodunmi v. Majekodunmi

The parties, married in Nigeria in 1971, commenced divorce proceedings in August 2000. Plaintiff was awarded maintenance of $420 per month until February 2004 and $2,000 in counsel fees, while defendant's request for child support for their daughter Adetoro was denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the maintenance duration and counsel fees, citing the parties' frugal pre-divorce lifestyle and plaintiff's spending habits. However, the court found an abuse of discretion in denying child support, directing plaintiff to pay $32.24 weekly, emphasizing that obligations are based on ability to provide support, not just current financial condition.

DivorceMaintenanceChild SupportCounsel FeesAppellate DecisionMarital Standard of LivingEarning CapacityFinancial ConditionSpousal SupportSchenectady County
References
7
Case No. 11-12-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Linda Lewis v. Ally Financial Inc. F/K/A GMAC, Inc. D/B/A GMAC

Linda Lewis appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Ally Financial Inc. Ally Financial had sued Lewis for breach of contract and foreclosure of security interest after she defaulted on a car loan and the vehicle was sold for less than the amount owed. Lewis raised several issues on appeal, including alleged judicial bias (recusal motions), violations of her constitutional rights (Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments), and improper grant of summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no procedural or substantive errors. The court concluded that Lewis failed to preserve some issues and that her arguments lacked merit, thus upholding the lower court's ruling.

Appeals CourtSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractForeclosureRecusal MotionConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kordek v. Wood

The New York Appellate Division addressed whether Family Court retains jurisdiction to establish paternity even when child support is neither sought nor ordered. The case arose from a petitioner's appeal after Family Court dismissed his paternity petition, reasoning that a lack of financial need for support negated its jurisdiction. Reversing this decision, the appellate court clarified that Family Court Act § 511 does not condition jurisdiction on financial need, empowering the court to issue custody and visitation orders concurrently with or independently of support orders. The court underscored that a filiation order confers numerous significant rights and obligations, indicating a legislative intent to expand the scope of paternity proceedings beyond mere public indemnification for child support. Consequently, the original order of filiation was reinstated, emphasizing the evolving legal framework for paternity.

PaternityFamily Court JurisdictionChild SupportFiliation OrderVisitation RightsDeclaratory JudgmentParental RightsOut-of-wedlock ChildrenStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 7,545 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