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. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evelyn B.

The petitioner initiated proceedings to terminate the parental rights of the respondent, mother of Evelyn B., alleging mental illness or retardation after Evelyn B. was adjudicated neglected. The Family Court, Clinton County, terminated parental rights, relying on testimony from a court-appointed clinical psychologist who diagnosed the respondent with an untreatable learning disorder and mixed personality disorder, rendering her unable to provide proper care. The respondent appealed, presenting testimony from her treating therapist suggesting potential improvement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination due to the respondent's mental illness and upholding the Family Court's discretion in crediting the court-appointed psychologist over the respondent's therapist, whose expert qualification was also appropriately denied.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewClinical PsychologyForensic EvaluationPersonality DisorderLearning DisorderExpert Witness Credibility
References
6
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of R.R. & S.J.S.

Ambrea Rodgers appealed the termination of her parental rights to her children, R.R. and S. J.S., after a default judgment was entered against her while she was incarcerated. Rodgers was jailed for forgery, fraud, and drug possession when CPS took custody of her children. Despite receiving amended petitions, Rodgers did not file an answer, believing no action on her part was necessary and an attorney would be automatically appointed. After her parental rights were terminated, an attorney was appointed who filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The Court found Rodgers satisfied all three requirements: her failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, she presented a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not cause injury or delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseBest Interest of the ChildFamily LawTexas Supreme Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Leon RR

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the permanent termination of parental rights for an infant, Leon, Jr., who had been in the physical custody of foster parents since 19 months of age. The dissent argues that the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services consistently undermined the natural parental relationship, encouraging the foster parents and failing to make diligent efforts to assist the natural parents in maintaining their connection with the child. It criticizes the agency for not carrying out a plan for reintegration and for encouraging the infant's attachment to the foster parents while limiting natural parental visitation. The opinion asserts that the record is inadequate to support the termination of parental rights, highlighting that the natural parents had previously had their other children returned to them and had cooperated with caseworkers. The dissent concludes that the administrative agency's conduct amounted to an abuse of the temporary placement system and votes to reverse the order, seeking dismissal of the petition for permanent termination of parental rights and remittal for consideration of continued custody.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeFoster Care SystemChild WelfareFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildJudicial DissentDepartment of Social ServicesFamily Court ActParent-Child Relationship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morgan v. Morgan

This appeal concerns a trial court's imposition of a geographical residency restriction in a divorce proceeding involving Donna Jean Morgan and Mitchell Delano Morgan. Donna appealed the order restricting her and their children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District, arguing it was an abuse of discretion, against the children's best interest, and an unconstitutional infringement on her parental rights, primarily due to economic motives to relocate to Lafayette, Louisiana. The court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering various factors like the reasons for the move, impact on extended family, and visitation with the non-custodial parent. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the trial court had sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the restriction was in the children's best interest. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Donna's constitutional challenge.

Child CustodyResidency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionParental RightsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process ClauseTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2006

In re Kadiatou B.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which dismissed a derivative neglect petition against respondent parents. The petition was based on a prior finding of child abuse in 2002, stemming from the 1999 death of their three-month-old baby, Kadiatou, due to blunt impact to the head and multiple skull fractures. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the prior abuse finding was inconclusive regarding the parents' direct role and was sufficiently remote in time. Furthermore, the court noted significant positive changes in the parents' behavior, their successful completion of parenting skills courses, individual psychotherapy, and continued engagement with family services. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to present specific evidence linking Kadiatou's injuries to intentional parental conduct or demonstrating a continued faulty understanding of parental duties.

Child NeglectChild AbuseDerivative NeglectParental DutiesChange in CircumstancesRes Ipsa LoquiturMedical Examiner FindingsHomicideSkull FracturesFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1985

O. Children. St. Dominic's Home v. Doris O.

Saint Dominic’s Home petitioned to terminate the parental rights of a mother and father for five children due to permanent neglect. The Family Court initially dismissed these petitions, citing the agency’s insufficient efforts regarding psychological testing for the parents. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the agency had made diligent efforts despite the parents' uncooperative behavior and repeated failures to maintain contact, plan for their children, and utilize agency services. The court emphasized that diligent efforts do not guarantee parental success, and the parents' prolonged failure to inform the agency of their whereabouts also served as an independent ground for termination. The petitions were granted, and the case was remanded for a dispositional hearing.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsSocial Services LawFamily Court ActFoster CareVisitation FailureParental PlanningPsychological TestingMethadone Addiction
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,093 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