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

Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Urquidez

This appeal addresses whether strict liability in tort applies when a product, a "non-interest spare" tire, has not entered the stream of commerce but was provided by the manufacturer, Armstrong Rubber Company, to Automotive Proving Grounds, Inc. for mutual benefit testing of other tires. Clemente Urquidez, a test driver, was killed due to a blowout of this tire. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals found the tire defective and applied strict liability. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the strict liability doctrine, as adopted in Texas, requires the product to be placed in the stream of commerce. Since the defective tire was manufactured and used solely within an industrial testing process and never released to the consuming public, the doctrine of strict liability was deemed inapplicable.

Strict LiabilityProduct LiabilityStream of CommerceBailment for Mutual BenefitNon-Interest Spare TireIndustrial TestingDefective ProductWrongful DeathReversalTexas Supreme Court
References
12
Case No. 04-24-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2024

In the Interest of J.A.T., a Child v. the State of Texas

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of J.G. (Mother) to her child, J.A.T. Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the best interest finding. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination petition due to concerns of child neglect and Mother's substance abuse. The trial court terminated parental rights based on statutory grounds including constructive abandonment, non-compliance with court orders, and endangering the child through substance abuse. Mother repeatedly tested positive for various illegal substances and did not complete court-ordered drug recovery or mental health services. J.A.T., diagnosed with autism, showed behavioral issues that improved during placement with maternal grandparents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that termination was in J.A.T.'s best interest, citing Mother's ongoing substance abuse and failure to address her issues.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceAccelerated AppealSubstance AbuseDrug TestingMental HealthAutism Spectrum DisorderFamily Code
References
27
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. 01-15-00733-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2016

in the Interest of D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L., Children

Margarita Luna and Jason McDonald appealed a trial court order terminating their parental rights to D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the termination based on allegations of Luna's physical abuse, neglectful supervision, and physical neglect, alongside her history of drug abuse and non-compliance with her family service plan. McDonald's rights were terminated due to his failure to respond to citation and assert paternity for D.R.L. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of Luna's parental rights was in the children's best interest. It also upheld McDonald's termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(1), which does not require a best interest finding for an alleged father who fails to respond to citation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseNeglectPhysical AbuseFamily LawBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Challenge
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dico Tire, Inc. v. Cisneros

Roger Cisneros, a tire service repairman, sued Dico Tire, Inc. for negligence and product liability after a tire exploded while he was repairing it, causing significant facial injuries and medical expenses. The jury found Dico negligent and that design and manufacturing defects in the tire were producing causes of Cisneros' injuries. The trial court rendered judgment against Dico for $243,247.65. Dico appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jury questions, jury argument, prejudgment interest, and denied cross-examination regarding Cisneros' alleged alcoholism. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for negligence and defects, and upholding the damages awarded, including prejudgment interest on future damages.

Tire ExplosionProduct LiabilityNegligenceDesign DefectManufacturing DefectPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsDamages
References
63
Case No. 02-11-00484-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2012

in the Interest of M.A.P., Minor Child

Appellants R.P., Jr. (Father) and C.H.G. (Mother) appealed the termination of their parental rights to their son, M.A.P. (Maurice), by the trial court. They argued legal and factual insufficiency of evidence and a violation of substantive due process. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The decision highlighted the parents' pattern of conduct including marijuana use around Maurice, Mother's failure to protect Maurice from Father's domestic violence, their unstable living conditions, and non-compliance with service plans. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the parents' conduct endangered Maurice's well-being and that termination was in his best interest.

Parental rights terminationChild endangermentDrug abuse (marijuana)Domestic violenceMental illness (schizophrenia)Child neglectFoster care systemFamily reunification failureAppellate reviewEvidentiary sufficiency
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1963

Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a wrongful death action brought by Natalie Halepeska and her children against Callihan Interests, Inc., following the death of Dennis L. Halepeska in a gas well blowout. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, applying the "no duty" and "volenti non fit injuria" doctrines based on a standard that Halepeska "should have known" the danger. The Supreme Court clarified that these doctrines require actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger, or that the danger be so open and obvious that knowledge is legally charged. Finding the lower courts erred in their application of the "should have known" standard and noting the jury found Halepeska lacked full knowledge and appreciation, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the evidentiary sufficiency.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumed RiskGas Well BlowoutIndependent ContractorBusiness InviteeTexas Law
References
37
Case No. 13-10-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2010

in the Interest of E. S. and A. G., Children

V.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children, E.S. and A.G. The trial court's decision was based on findings that V.S. violated statutory grounds for termination, specifically by failing to comply with a court-ordered family service plan, and that termination was in the children's best interest. The children were removed from V.S.'s care after E.S. sustained severe, non-accidental burns, which medical experts concluded were consistent with head immersion in scalding water. V.S. initially lied about the circumstances to protect the children's father, A.U.G., and later pleaded guilty to hindering his apprehension. She also failed to complete required classes, evaluations, maintain stable housing, or consistent visitation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the termination of V.S.'s parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-ComplianceDomestic ViolenceLegal Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. 06-14-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

in the Interest of R.T.M. and I.M., Children

Raechel and Raymond appealed the termination of their parental rights to their children, R.T.M. and I.M., challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the appointment of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as conservator. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination, citing the parents' history of drug abuse, domestic violence, failure to comply with court orders, and creation of an unstable and dangerous home environment. Testimony indicated the children feared their parents and desired to remain with their foster family. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that termination was in the children's best interest. Furthermore, the court upheld the Department's conservatorship, ruling that the parents lacked standing to challenge the non-appointment of a relative intervenor, A.H.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily LawChild EndangermentDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceBest Interest of ChildClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate ReviewConservatorship
References
16
Case No. 02-11-00480-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2012

in the Interest of A.L.W. and M.M.P., the Children

This memorandum opinion from the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirms a trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of D.W.P. (Father) and E.W. (Mother) to their children, A.L.W. and M.M.P., and granting managing conservatorship of M.M.P. to A.M. and B.M. (Maroneys). The parents appealed the termination, citing insufficient evidence, while the children's Grandmother, D.P., appealed the Maroneys' intervention and other procedural issues. The case details the parents' extensive history of drug abuse, criminal activities, domestic disputes, and non-compliance with court-ordered service plans. Psychological evaluations revealed significant personality disorders and a high risk of relapse, leading the court to conclude that termination was in the children's best interest due to the parents' inability to provide a stable and safe environment.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyDrug AbuseSubstance AddictionCriminal HistoryFamily LawAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-compliance
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 6,212 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