Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 10-10-00350-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

Rebecca S., Michael W., and Billy B. appealed a trial court's judgment in Johnson County, Texas, terminating their parental rights to R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S. The jury found grounds for termination, including endangerment due to unstable living conditions, exposure to individuals with histories of abuse/neglect, and the parents' mental deficiencies. The appeals court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to refuse a requested jury charge related to retaining jurisdiction under Section 263.403.

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment

References

Case No. 2-06-409-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 31, 2007

in the Interest of A.M.S.S., a Child

Appellant Lola S. appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial, asserting an abuse of discretion in terminating her parental rights to her child, A.M.S.S. Lola S. did not appear for trial, claiming she did not receive written notice due to a change of address, though her counsel confirmed she was informed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) presented a history of Lola S.'s endangering conduct towards her other child and other criminal acts. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Lola S. endangered the child's well-being and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild WelfareTexasDefault JudgmentEvidence Admissibility

References

Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 04, 2000

Vallance v. Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc.

Anne Marie Vallanee appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc., in her lawsuit alleging wrongful termination for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Vallanee, an intake receptionist, suffered two back injuries and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, leading to her termination due to chronic absenteeism. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding no evidence that her termination was causally linked to filing the claim, as required by Texas Labor Code § 451.001. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that while the employer knew of the claim and terminated her for absenteeism, Vallanee failed to provide sufficient evidence that 'but for' the claim, she would not have been discharged.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal ConnectionChronic AbsenteeismAppellate ReviewLabor LawTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. 01-03-00924-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. appealed a judgment in favor of L.M.S.C., Inc., d/b/a The Dental Solution (TDS), stemming from a breach of contract dispute. TDS, a dental placement service, sued the Williams for an unpaid permanent placement fee after Diana Flanagan, whom TDS had previously placed temporarily as a dental hygienist, was hired by the Williams as a full-time dentist. The appellants challenged the jury's findings, arguing the contract did not cover dentists, lacked new consideration for modifications, and missed essential terms. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the placement agreement, as modified by subsequent fee schedules, applied to the placement of dentists and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the Williamses breached the contract by failing to pay the permanent placement fee. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees.

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 13, 2012

Penaranda v. 4933 Realty, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of K&S Construction, sustained injuries after being thrown from a Bobcat within a warehouse owned by the defendant landlord. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was removing plywood, an activity he claimed was necessary for a concrete curb construction project. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's plywood removal qualified as construction work under the Labor Law, entitling him to its protections. The court found a question of fact regarding whether the work was "necessary and incidental" to the construction. Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was reinstated, and the third-party complaint for contractual indemnity against K&S Construction was also reinstated, while other aspects of the lower court's decision were affirmed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBobcat AccidentGravity-Related EventCounterweightAppellate ReviewQuestion of Fact

References

Case No. 07-06-0379-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. (appellant) appealed a trial court's order. The appellant's counsel informed the court that Dawn Gayken had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket of this court and abated. The appeal will be reinstated upon a proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure

References

Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County

References

Case No. 03-03-00079-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion

References

Showing 1-10 of 15,402 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 10-10-00350-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment

References

Case No. 2-06-409-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 31, 2007

in the Interest of A.M.S.S., a Child

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild WelfareTexasDefault JudgmentEvidence Admissibility

References

Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 04, 2000

Vallance v. Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal ConnectionChronic AbsenteeismAppellate ReviewLabor LawTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. 01-03-00924-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 06, 2005

Mary Williams, D.D.S. and Russell Williams, D.D.S. v. L.M.S.C., Inc., D/B/A the Dental Solution

Breach of ContractPlacement AgreementDental IndustryPermanent Placement FeeContract ModificationConsiderationMeeting of the MindsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 13, 2012

Penaranda v. 4933 Realty, LLC

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBobcat AccidentGravity-Related EventCounterweightAppellate ReviewQuestion of Fact

References

Case No. 07-06-0379-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure

References

Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County

References

Case No. 03-03-00079-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 15,402 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.