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. 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. CAF 10-00834
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

Y., BRIDGET KATHLEEN, MTR. OF

This case is an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County, which found four children (Bridget Y., Kelly Y., Colleen Y., and Michaela Y.) to be neglected and placed them into the custody of the Chautauqua County Department of Social Services (DSS). The parents, Kenneth M.Y. and Rita S., appealed, challenging the Family Court's subject matter jurisdiction, asserting New Mexico as the children's home state with a pending custody proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction, citing the children's imminent risk of harm due to severe abuse and neglect allegations and New Mexico's insufficient protective measures. The appeal was dismissed as moot for Colleen Y. and Kelly Y., who attained the age of 18 during the appeal's pendency.

Child NeglectChild AbuseTemporary Emergency JurisdictionUCCJEAFamily LawAppellate ReviewJurisdictional ConflictParental RightsHome StateInter-State Custody
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fung v. Japan Airlines Co.

Plaintiff Brent Fung, a Port Authority employee, slipped on ice at John F. Kennedy International Airport and sustained back injuries, for which he received workers’ compensation. He subsequently filed negligence actions against Japan Airlines Management Corp. (JAMC), the Port Authority's managing agent, and Aero Snow Removal Corp., a snow removal contractor. JAMC sought immunity under Workers’ Compensation Law, arguing it acted as Fung's employer or coemployee. The court rejected JAMC's defense, finding insufficient working relationship to extend the exclusive remedy provisions. The court also dismissed claims against Aero, concluding Aero owed no duty of care to Fung as its contract did not require salting/sanding without request and its actions did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division's order was modified, affirming the dismissal of claims against Aero, denying JAMC's immunity defense, and remitting for further consideration of indemnification claims.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy DoctrineAgency RelationshipSpecial EmployerCoemployee LiabilityNegligence ActionSnow Removal ContractDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. W2023-01333-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

In Re Royalty Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning the termination of Marissa Y.'s parental rights to her child, Royalty Y. The trial court initially found four statutory grounds for termination, including abandonment, persistence of conditions, and failure to assume custody/financial responsibility. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's reliance on the abandonment grounds, citing its failure to make findings on the mother's affirmative defense of lack of willfulness. However, the appellate court affirmed the termination based on the remaining grounds and the child's best interest, emphasizing the child's long-term foster care and bond with foster parents. The case was remanded for enforcement of the termination order.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentFailure to VisitFailure to SupportMental Health CrisisChild NeglectBest Interest of ChildAffirmative DefenseWillfulnessAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.Y. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs, parents of R.Y., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), challenging a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision that reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) finding. The IHO had ruled that the DOE failed to provide R.Y. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and ordered tuition reimbursement for R.Y.'s private school, the Rebecca School. The District Court found multiple procedural violations by the DOE that cumulatively denied R.Y. a FAPE. The Court also affirmed the IHO's findings that the Rebecca School was an appropriate placement and that the equities favored the Parents. Consequently, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and the DOE's cross-motion was DENIED, entitling Plaintiffs to tuition reimbursement and attorneys' fees.

IDEAFAPEIEPDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSpecial Education LawProcedural AdequacyParental RightsAutism Spectrum DisorderAdministrative Review
References
38
Case No. PD-0445-15
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2015

Cary, David Frederick

David Frederick Cary was convicted of engaging in organized criminal activity, six counts of bribery, and one count of money laundering. The Court of Appeals reversed these convictions, finding the evidence legally insufficient because the State failed to prove the benefits conferred were not political contributions. The State of Texas is now petitioning the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, arguing the Court of Appeals misapplied the legal sufficiency standard under Jackson v. Virginia. The State contends the lower court improperly focused on evidence negating the jury's finding and failed to consider the totality of evidence supporting it. The State also highlights a conflict with a related, unpublished panel decision in the case of Stacy Cary, which affirmed convictions on similar evidence. The State seeks to reverse the lower court's judgment and affirm Cary's original convictions.

Criminal LawBriberyMoney LaunderingOrganized Criminal ActivityJudicial CampaignPolitical ContributionsLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsCourt of Appeals
References
18
Case No. M2019-00639-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

In Re Gracie H. Y.

Ashley H. (Mother) appealed the termination of her parental rights to her minor children, Noah H. and Gracie H. Y., by the Lawrence County Chancery Court. The Trial Court had terminated Mother's parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, including abandonment by failure to visit, wanton disregard, failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody or financial responsibility. The Trial Court also found termination to be in the children's best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the statutory ground of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home due to insufficient factual findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment in all other respects, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the other grounds for termination and that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interest, citing Mother's continued drug use, criminal history, unstable housing, and failure to comply with permanency plans and address mental health issues.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentWanton DisregardPermanency Plans NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsFailure to Assume CustodyBest Interest of ChildDrug AbuseIncarceration HistoryDomestic Violence Exposure
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rebecca X.

This case involves appeals from six Family Court orders that adjudicated Rebecca X., Carissa Y., and Brittany Y. as abused and/or neglected children. Brittany Y. accused the respondent (her mother's boyfriend) of sexual abuse, which was corroborated by medical examinations and social worker assessments despite attempts by her mother and the respondent to influence her statements. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and derivative neglect for her sisters. The respondent was deemed a legally responsible person due to his cohabitation and disciplinary role. The appellate court affirmed all orders, concluding that Brittany's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated, the respondent was properly identified as legally responsible, and the findings of derivative neglect were amply supported. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were also rejected.

Sexual abuseChild neglectCorroborated testimonyDerivative findingsParental dutyMedical evidenceWitness intimidationFamily Court proceedingsAppellant rightsAbuse adjudication
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jose Y.

The petitioner, Dutchess County Department of Social Services, appealed an order from the Family Court, Dutchess County, which had dismissed child abuse and neglect petitions and returned the children to the respondent's custody. The appellate court modified the order, reversing the dismissal of neglect allegations concerning Jose Y., Eduardo Y., and Geraldo Y., and found that the respondent had neglected the children. The court determined that the respondent failed to recognize and act upon clear signs of sexual abuse endured by Eduardo over two years. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing, with custody of Eduardo Y. and Geraldo Y. remaining with the appellant, and updated psychological evaluations ordered for all parties involved.

Child NeglectChild AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Parental SupervisionSexual Abuse VictimsAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingPsychological EvaluationRemittal to Family CourtChild Custody
References
6
Case No. 05-12-00701-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2013

the City of Dallas v. Frederick Salyer

The City of Dallas appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in Frederick Salyer's negligence lawsuit. Salyer, a temporary worker, sustained injuries in a work-related accident. The City argued governmental immunity was not waived because Salyer was an employee, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. Salyer claimed he was an independent contractor. The appellate court found undisputed evidence established Salyer's status as a City employee, based on the City's control over his work and payment structure. The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed Salyer's claims.

Governmental ImmunityWorkers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionNegligenceExclusive RemedyAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 367 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