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. M2023-00279-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2024

In Re Chance B.

Mother, Heather B., appealed the termination of her parental rights and the stepparent adoption of her two minor children, Chance B. and Isaiah B., by their stepmother, Jennie B., and father, Troy B. The trial court in Montgomery County had found three grounds for termination: abandonment by failure to visit, abandonment by failure to support, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody, concluding it was in the children's best interest. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court addressed a mootness issue regarding one child turning eighteen during the appeal, concluding it was not moot due to collateral consequences and the intertwined stepparent adoption. While vacating the 'failure to visit' ground for an incomplete analysis, the court affirmed the 'failure to support' and 'failure to manifest ability and willingness to assume custody' grounds, upholding the termination and adoption decision.

Parental Rights TerminationStepparent AdoptionChild AbandonmentChild SupportChild CustodyMootness DoctrineBest Interest of ChildAppellate ProcedureDomestic AbuseFamily Law
References
52
Case No. 07-15-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

in the Interest of D.E.B., S.B., J.B., Children

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother of D.E.B., S.B., and J.B. The trial court ordered termination of parental rights for S.B. and J.B., but not D.E.B. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of S.B. and J.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, citing the mother's long history of inability to provide for her children's physical and emotional needs, protect them from danger, and successfully complete court-ordered service plans. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding.

Termination of Parental RightsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFamily LawChild NeglectParental UnfitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewDue ProcessTexas Law
References
13
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jackie B.

The appellate court affirmed a Family Court order terminating the respondent's parental rights over his son, Jackie B., on the ground of abandonment. The child, born in March 2007, was placed in foster care in May 2007. The petitioner initiated proceedings in May 2009. The Family Court found the respondent abandoned the child, and the appellate court concurred, citing clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to maintain contact with the child or the agency for the six months prior to the petition. The respondent's claim of being prevented from contact due to incarceration was rejected, as he failed to provide sufficient explanation and disregarded agency policies. The court also determined that terminating parental rights was in the child's best interests, given the respondent's history of violence, incarceration, failure to complete rehabilitative programs, and the child's strong bond with his foster family who are willing to adopt.

Parental AbandonmentParental Rights TerminationChild Foster CareBest Interests StandardFamily Court AppealAppellate ReviewIncarceration and Parental RightsFailure to CommunicateSocial Services LawChild Welfare Proceedings
References
19
Case No. 06-18-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2019

Charles Duncan McMillan D/B/A Anthony Sign Company v. Kelly Shane Hearne

Kelly Shane Hearne filed a personal injury suit against his employer, Charles Duncan McMillan d/b/a Anthony Sign Company, alleging negligence after he fell from a ladder. McMillan, a nonsubscriber to the workers’ compensation system, appealed the jury's finding of liability and the awarded damages, disputing the sufficiency of evidence and the offset amount. Hearne cross-appealed concerning the damages offset. The appellate court affirmed the finding of negligence and ruled that McMillan's employee benefit plan payments were not subject to the collateral source rule, thus allowing an offset. However, the court modified the trial court's judgment to reflect a corrected offset amount, increasing Hearne's past damages award.

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerWorkers Compensation ExemptionLadder FallProximate CauseForeseeabilityDamages OffsetCollateral Source RuleEmployee Benefit Plan
References
55
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of B.

B, a 26-year-old woman with Down's syndrome and mild to moderate retardation, sought a tubal ligation. Her mother and guardian, D.P., petitioned the Supreme Court, Tompkins County, to modify a 1993 order that had prohibited such sterilization without further court review. The court assessed B's capacity to provide informed consent, considering testimonies from her gynecologist, psychiatric social worker, mother, and an independent psychologist. While one expert initially questioned her capacity, B's own testimony demonstrated a clear understanding of the procedure and her reasons for wanting it. Applying the Nilsson standards for sterilization petitions, the court found that the procedure was in B's best interests. Consequently, the petition was granted, affirming B's capacity to consent and modifying the previous order to authorize the tubal ligation.

GuardianshipSterilizationInformed ConsentMental Hygiene LawIncapacityDevelopmental DisabilityDown SyndromeReproductive RightsMedical TreatmentBest Interests
References
14
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,832 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