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

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

In the Interest of J.F.C.

This dissenting opinion addresses a parental-rights-termination case where the central issue is whether appellate courts can review unpreserved jury-charge errors under the common-law doctrine of fundamental error in Texas. Justice Hankinson argues for the application of fundamental error review, particularly when significant public interests, such as the "best interest of the child" as articulated in Texas statutes and caselaw, are involved. She identifies the trial court's jury charge, which omitted instructions on the children's "best interest," as erroneous. However, she disagrees with the court of appeals' finding that this error was harmful, citing overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting termination based on the children's best interest. She also concludes that broad-form jury questions did not violate due process. Justice Hankinson dissents from the majority's opinion and judgment, criticizing its avoidance of the fundamental error review issue and its incorrect finding of harmful error, which led to the reversal and remand of the trial court's judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessFundamental ErrorJury Charge ErrorError PreservationAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildTexas Family LawDissenting OpinionCivil Procedure
References
80
Case No. 06-14-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

in the Interest of R.L.C., Jr., R.D.C., K.M.S., and A.M.C., Children

Amy Smith's parental rights to her four children were terminated by the trial court due to her extensive history of drug abuse, criminal justice involvement, and neglectful supervision, which endangered her children's physical and emotional well-being. Smith appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court, considering various Holley factors such as Smith's continued drug use, lack of stable housing and income, failure to complete treatment programs, and the children's improved conditions in foster care, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that the evidence was factually sufficient to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbuseBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyTexas Family CodeSubstance Abuse DisorderFoster CareNeglectful SupervisionHolley Factors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1984

Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital v. Justice

Joseph Justice, an employee of Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, suffered a heart attack while working, leading to a worker's compensation claim. A jury found his heart attack was work-related, causing total temporary incapacity for 370 weeks, and that the hospital failed to provide reasonable medical care. Despite the jury's initial finding on wages, the trial court disregarded it, ruling that Justice's average daily wage qualified for the maximum compensation rate. Justice died after the verdict but before the judgment was signed. The hospital appealed, challenging the court's wage determination and a perceived improper argument by Justice's counsel, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the wages conclusively proved and the argument error waived.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackTemporary IncapacityJury VerdictTrial Court DiscretionAverage Weekly Wage CalculationMaximum Compensation RateJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoImproper ArgumentWaiver of Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

People v. Brian M.

Brian M., a 19-year-old, was charged with a drug sale and pleaded guilty, but struggled significantly with drug addiction and mental health issues. Through the persistent efforts of the Andrew Glover Youth Program and a therapeutic remand, he underwent a complete transformation, completing an inpatient program, becoming drug-free, enrolling in college, and securing full-time employment. Despite the People's opposition, Judge Thomas Farber granted Brian M.'s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interests of justice. The court recognized the compelling reasons for judicial intervention, citing Brian M.'s successful rehabilitation, the non-violent nature of his crime, and the severe, lasting negative impact a felony conviction would have on his life, ensuring he could become a productive citizen.

Drug AddictionMental HealthYouthful OffenderRehabilitationIndictment DismissalInterests of JusticeCriminal Procedure LawNew YorkSentencing ReformNon-violent Crime
References
2
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. 03-16-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

AC Interests L.P., Formerly American Coatings, L.P. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

AC Interests, L.P. appeals the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning the denial of emission credits. AC Interests argues that the TCEQ's motion to dismiss under Rule 91a was improperly granted, as their claims have a basis in both law and fact. They contend that their application for emission credit certification met all legal requirements, and the TCEQ's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Furthermore, AC Interests highlights that the Commission has since indicated a willingness to allow emission credits for area sources, which they are classified as. The appellant asserts that procedural issues, including a shortened appeal time and an alleged violation of due process, unduly harmed their ability to obtain earned emission credits. AC Interests seeks a reversal of the district court's dismissal to pursue its claim for vested property rights in emission credits.

Emission CreditsEnvironmental LawAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTCEQArea SourcesMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAir PollutionVOC Emissions
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.K.

Mustofa K Khandokar appealed the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, E.A.K., after a jury found grounds for termination and that it was in the child's best interest. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay documents, including child outcry statements, without proper foundation or reliability. These evidentiary errors were deemed harmful, likely leading to an improper judgment. Despite finding legally sufficient evidence on one ground for termination and the child's best interest based on properly admitted evidence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Outcry StatementsEvidentiary ErrorHarmless Error AnalysisLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of Child
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,627 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