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

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. 05-19-00392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2019

in the Interest of M.M.M. and C.N.M., Children

B.M., an incarcerated father, appealed a post-answer default judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor children, M.M.M. and C.N.M. He argued denial of notice, a fair trial, and due process. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination, citing B.M.'s conduct endangering the children, failure to provide support, and criminal conviction leading to incarceration. The Court of Appeals overruled all of B.M.'s issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment, primarily because B.M. failed to preserve the issues for appellate review by not filing a motion for new trial or timely objecting in the trial court. The court also concluded that B.M. received proper notice of the trial setting.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentDue ProcessNotice of TrialAppellate ReviewWaiver of ErrorIncarcerated ParentChild WelfareTexas Family LawPost-answer Default
References
27
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
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 05-19-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

in the Interest of M.M., a Child

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a suit to terminate Father’s parental rights concerning his minor child, M.M., which the trial court granted after a jury trial. Father appealed, raising six issues, including alleged violations of Family Code deadlines, ineffective assistance of counsel, an erroneous denial of an intervenor's motion, and improper admission of his murder conviction. The Court of Appeals overruled all of Father's issues, finding no violation of Family Code deadlines, no ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of standing for the intervenor's issue, and no abuse of discretion in admitting the conviction. The court also determined that Father failed to preserve his evidentiary sufficiency challenges regarding the jury's findings on M.M.'s best interest and the Department's appointment as managing conservator. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Protective ServicesIneffective Assistance of CounselFamily Code DeadlinesRule 11 AgreementIntervention PetitionCriminal Conviction AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildEvidentiary SufficiencyManaging Conservatorship
References
16
Case No. 07-10-0478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2012

Victor Montes, Jr. D/B/A M&M Plastering as President of M&M Plastering v. Dyrel Wells

Victor Montes, Jr., doing business as M&M Plastering, appealed a judgment entered in favor of Dyrel Wells for breach of a construction contract. Montes contended the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial, claiming a violation of due process due to lack of notice for the trial setting. The appellate court found that Montes had received notice of the original and reset trial dates and failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the trial court's finding of proper notification. Furthermore, Montes did not provide a reporter's record for review. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawDue Process ViolationDefault JudgmentNotice RequirementsMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion StandardTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
16
Case No. 07-10-0478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2012

Victor Montes, Jr. D/B/A M&M Plastering as President of M&M Plastering v. Dyrel Wells

Appellant Victor Montes, Jr., doing business as M&M Plastering, appealed a default judgment entered in favor of appellee Dyrel Wells for breach of a construction contract. Wells had sued Montes for common law fraud and breach of contract concerning stucco work. Montes, who had previously filed for bankruptcy, failed to file a written answer in the suit and subsequently did not attend scheduled mediation or the non-jury trial, despite evidence of multiple notifications. The trial court proceeded to issue a default judgment against Montes. On appeal, Montes argued he was denied due process due to a lack of notice regarding the trial setting and sought a new trial. However, the appellate court found sufficient evidence that Montes received proper notice and failed to overcome the legal presumption in favor of the trial court's finding. Furthermore, Montes failed to provide a reporter's record for review. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in denying Montes's motion for a new trial.

Breach of ContractDefault JudgmentDue ProcessNotice of TrialMotion for New TrialAppellate ProcedurePro Se LitigantTexas Court of AppealsConstruction ContractSufficiency of Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Children

Jessica M. and Daniel M. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights for children E.M. and J.M. Jessica raised issues regarding the admissibility of E.M.'s therapist statements, the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds and best interest, and errors in jury instructions. Daniel challenged the admissibility of E.M.'s statements and the sufficiency of evidence for best interest. The court found E.M.'s statements, detailing abuse and neglect, to be admissible and reliable. Parental rights were terminated based on findings of endangerment through conditions, conduct, and failure to comply with court orders. Evidence included a domestic disturbance, K2 drug use allegations, positive drug tests, parental instability, and E.M.'s expressed fear. The court affirmed the jury's findings against Jessica. Daniel's sufficiency complaints were not preserved, and jury charge errors were overruled. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectHearsay EvidenceChild Therapist TestimonyDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
56
Case No. 11-23-00162-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2024

In the Interest of M.J.M., a Child v. the State of Texas

The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a default order against J.J.M.G. for child support. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) initially sued J.J.M.G. to establish support obligations for M.J.M., leading to a default judgment when J.J.M.G. and counsel failed to appear. J.J.M.G.'s motion for a new trial was denied by operation of law. On appeal, J.J.M.G. contended the trial court erred in denying the motion as all elements of the Craddock test were met, a point conceded by the OAG. The appellate court agreed, finding an abuse of discretion, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Child SupportDefault JudgmentNew Trial MotionAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestParental ObligationsFamily LawAppellate ReviewTexas LawDue Process
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,955 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