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. 02-11-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

in the Interest of S.W., K.H., K.H., K.H., K.H., and K v. Children

This memorandum opinion from the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, addresses appeals by T.H. (Mother) and Q.D. (Father) regarding a trial court's order. The order appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator for five children and S.W.'s father as sole managing conservator for S.W. Father's appeal focused on the admissibility of a Michigan home study report, which the court affirmed as trustworthy under the public records exception. Mother's appeal claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, citing issues with opening statements, evidence of firing attorneys, lack of preparation, and failure to obtain updated mental health evaluations or secure out-of-state witnesses. The appellate court found no reversible error, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Child ConservatorshipParental RightsIneffective Assistance of CounselPublic Records ExceptionHearsayFamily LawChild ProtectionMental HealthAppellate ReviewTrial Strategy
References
22
Case No. 13-02-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2003

Oscar Gonzalez v. H & H Meat Products Company, Inc.

Oscar Gonzalez appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to H&H Meat Products Company, Inc. on his claims for workers' compensation retaliatory discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Gonzalez contended the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed the granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment de novo. H&H asserted it was entitled to summary judgment because Gonzalez failed to establish a causal link between his discharge and the filing of his workers' compensation claim, stating he violated company absence-control policy and refused a light-duty position. The court concluded that H&H established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination, and Gonzalez failed to produce controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive. Therefore, the trial court's order granting summary judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCausal LinkLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonAbsence-Control PolicyLight-Duty PositionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
17
Case No. M2012-01657-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2013

In the Matter of Cheyenne E. H. and Robert L. H.

This case concerns the termination of Mother Doloria H.'s parental rights to her two children, Cheyenne E. H. and Robert L. H. The Chancery Court for Lawrence County terminated her rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions, also finding it to be in the children's best interest. Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the statutory grounds, that termination was not in the children's best interest, and that the Department of Children’s Services failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of parental rights on all grounds.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentPermanency Plan Non-compliancePersistence of ConditionsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildReunification EffortsDependency and NeglectTennessee LawChild Support
References
18
Case No. 13-17-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Suntide Sandpit, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Mike Hurst, Individually, Phil Hurst, Individually, and Erma Stillwell

H & H Sand and Gravel, Inc. (Appellant) sued Suntide Sandpit, Inc., Mike Hurst, Phil Hurst, and Erma Stillwell (Appellees) for contractual damages. H & H was awarded damages against Suntide and Stillwell, but not against Mike and Phil. H & H appealed three issues: the trial court's alleged errors in failing to instruct the jury on the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, spoliation of evidence, and piercing the corporate veil; failure to enforce a discovery order and grant death penalty sanctions; and failure to award contingent appellate attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions, the denial of death penalty sanctions, and declining to award contingent appellate attorney's fees as H & H did not prevail on appeal.

Contractual DamagesConstruction Trust Fund ActSpoliation of EvidencePiercing the Corporate VeilJury InstructionsDiscovery SanctionsMonetary SanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesCommercial LawCorporate Law
References
34
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, which found that the mother, Rosemarie H., permanently neglected her child, Sean P.H., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody to Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services. The mother's contentions regarding deprivation of her right to be present and ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as her due process rights were met and she received meaningful representation. The court found clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect due to her failure to plan for the child's return and comply with the service plan, and determined that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFamily LawAppealsDue Process RightsLegal RepresentationFoster Care SystemGuardianshipAdoptionService Plan
References
23
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08836
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2015

Matter of Morgan A.H.-P. (Ta-Mirra J.H.)

This case concerns an appeal by Morgan A.H.-P., a child, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County. The Family Court order dismissed a petition filed by New Alternatives for Children (the Agency) to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The child was initially placed in foster care in 2010. After the child's transfer to the Agency in 2011, the permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption, a decision contested by the mother. The Agency subsequently petitioned to terminate parental rights, relying on documentary evidence during the fact-finding hearing. The Family Court found that the Agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, instead concluding that the Agency actively undermined it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, determining that the Agency did not meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, thus upholding the dismissal of the termination petition.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild WelfareDiligent EffortsParent-Child RelationshipTermination of Parental RightsSocial Services LawFoster Care
References
6
Case No. 02-12-00237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2012

in the Interest of C.M.D. and H.M.A. A/K/A H.M.A., Children

This case concerns an appeal from a post-answer default judgment terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their children, C.M.D. and H.M.A. The parents' attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a motion for continuance due to health issues, which the trial court denied after granting the withdrawal. Mother and Father did not appear for trial, claiming their attorney told them a continuance was granted. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, finding the parents' failure to appear was not intentional or consciously indifferent and that a new trial would not cause delay. Citing due process concerns over parental rights, the court concluded that the family code's dismissal deadline must yield, and consequently, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialDue ProcessAttorney WithdrawalContinuance DenialCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureFamily LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re H. R.

The Law Guardian for the infant H. R. filed an application seeking an order to place H. R. in the certified foster home of Mr. and Mrs. S., where his three half-siblings already reside. H. R. was born drug-positive and with syphilis, requiring special care. The Rockland County Department of Social Services opposed the placement, citing New York State Department of Social Services regulations regarding household capacity and the special needs of the children, arguing it would jeopardize the care of the other eight children in the S. home. The court, citing New York Family Court Act § 1027-a, emphasized the strong state policy of keeping siblings together and the presumption that such placement is in the child's best interests. The court found the Department's opposition to be based on speculation rather than concrete evidence of harm, and therefore insufficient to overcome the legal presumption. Consequently, the court granted the application, directing the Commissioner of Social Services to place infant H. R. with the S. foster family, with an expectation of continued monitoring by the Commissioner.

Child welfaresibling placementfoster carebest interests of the childFamily Court ActDepartment of Social Servicesdrug addictionhandicapped childrenjudicial discretionNew York law
References
3
Case No. 13-23-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Marriage of Kelly Hettinger and Andrew Hettinger and in the Interest of H.C.H., K.C.H., and M.G.H., Children v. the State of Texas

This is an appeal from a final divorce decree in Texas concerning property division and a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Appellant Andrew Hettinger challenged a jury's $1.5 million IIED award to Kelly Hettinger and a $6,000 monthly child support order. Kelly Hettinger, the appellee, cross-appealed, arguing the trial court improperly categorized a pending personal injury lawsuit as community property and erred in striking her expert witness for discovery violations. The appellate court reversed the IIED claim, finding insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct, and remanded the child support and community property division for recalculation and re-division due to errors in applying family code factors and mischaracterizing separate property. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to strike Kelly's expert witness due to discovery non-compliance.

DivorceProperty DivisionChild SupportIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDiscovery AbuseExpert WitnessSeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of Appeals
References
89
Showing 1-10 of 825 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