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. 01-16-00491-CV; 01-16-00535-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

in the Interest of J.R. and M.D.N.S.T., Children

This memorandum opinion concerns an appeal from the termination of parental rights for two children, J.R. and M.D.N.S.T., by the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas. L.S. (Mother) and J.T. (Mary's Father) appealed the decision, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of evidence for modifying conservatorship, the statutory grounds for termination, and the best-interest finding. The appellate court found that the trial court maintained subject-matter jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances to modify conservatorship. Specifically, the court affirmed the termination of Mother's rights based on her failure to comply with the court-ordered family service plan (Subsection O) and Father's rights based on his history of endangering conduct (Subsection E). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence adequately supported the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interest, considering their long stay in foster care, special needs, and the parents' non-compliance.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyFamily LawChild WelfareFoster CareAbuse and NeglectBest Interest of the ChildMaterial and Substantial ChangeFamily Service PlanAppellate Review
References
37
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. 10-19-00325-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2019

in the Interest of H.J.Y.S., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Frederica (the mother) and Maria (the maternal aunt) from a judgment that terminated Frederica's parental rights to H.J.Y.S., a child, and modified the parent-child relationship. Frederica appealed on grounds of improper service, insufficient evidence for termination, and jury charge error. Maria appealed the modification, citing insufficient evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances and that it was not in the child's best interest. The appellate court found the evidence factually insufficient for termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) but affirmed the termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(N) (constructive abandonment) and the modification. The judgment of the trial court was modified to delete the finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and affirmed as modified.

parental rights terminationchild conservatorshipfamily law appealTexas Family Codechild's best interestsubstituted service of processfactual sufficiency of evidenceconstructive abandonmentparental deportationalcohol abuse concerns
References
34
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. 14-04-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2007

Abel Arguelles, Terrie A. Augustino, Petra Renee Barfield, William a Barfield, Adolph Brown, Desmond Burnett, Dora A. Burnett, Ricky A. Carter v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company, and Halliburton Company, Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company

This case originated from a catastrophic chemical complex explosion and fire that resulted in numerous worker injuries. The injured workers and their families (Appellants) sued Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. and Halliburton Company (Appellees) for negligence, alleging inadequate pressure relief system evaluations provided years before the incident. The trial court issued a take-nothing summary judgment against the workers. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding it was final. The appellate court concluded that Phillips's actions leading up to the explosion constituted a new and independent cause, legally breaking the chain of causation from Kellogg's alleged earlier negligence, or alternatively, that Kellogg's conduct was too remote to be considered a substantial factor in causing the injuries.

Chemical Plant ExplosionButadiene PolymerizationPressure Relief SystemNegligenceProximate CauseSuperseding CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentSafety Engineering
References
17
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. ADJ7469776
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

PAUL PALMER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether California workers' compensation jurisdiction applies to an out-of-state professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's minimal contact with California (5 out of 62 games) did not establish a sufficient connection for due process under *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The majority found that California lacked a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating the claim, deeming the applicant's contact "de minimis." Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that California has a substantial interest in injured workers and that the applicant's contact was more than de minimis, thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPaul PalmerKansas City ChiefsTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaADJ7469776Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeWCJFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
2
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
Case No. 07-07-0126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

in the Interest of M.D., a Child

Natasha and Timothy appealed the termination of their parental rights to their son, M.D. Their appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the child's best interest, and argued due process violations concerning the requirement to file a statement of points within fifteen days. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the parents' arguments on sufficiency of evidence, best interest, and public policy were not preserved due to untimely filing of the statement of points. Additionally, the court rejected their claims that the fifteen-day filing requirement for a statement of points violated their federal and state due process rights.

Parental RightsDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceChild WelfareTexas Family LawStatement of PointsTimelinessAffirmationParental Rights Termination
References
31
Case No. 2-09-140-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2010

in the Interest of B.J., a Child

Appellant J.J. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her daughter B.J. The trial court found J.J. had knowingly placed or allowed B.J. to remain in conditions that endangered her physical or emotional well-being and that termination was in B.J.'s best interest. Evidence included B.J.'s diagnosis of cellulitis and failure to thrive due to undernourishment and malnutrition, J.J.'s poor hygiene, irregular medication use for bipolar disorder, belligerent conduct in the hospital, failure to comply with CPS service plans (personal counseling, drug assessment, parenting classes), unstable housing and employment, and continued marijuana use despite deferred adjudication community supervision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment and best interest findings, and overruled J.J.'s constitutional challenges.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFailure to ThriveChild Protective ServicesBest Interest of ChildEvidentiary SufficiencyFamily LawTexasAppealMedical Neglect
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,478 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