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. 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. 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. 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. 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. W2009-00251-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Cassandra Lynn Rudd v. Howard Thomas Rudd

This case involves an appeal concerning a parenting plan established during a divorce. The trial court's decision granted the Mother primary residential status, allowed her to relocate, and denied the Father any parenting time. While the appellate court affirmed the Mother's primary residential status and relocation, it vacated the visitation aspect, remanding the case for further proceedings. The remand requires specific findings of harm related to visitation and the establishment of the least restrictive visitation plan. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the trial court's calculation of the Father's income for child support purposes.

Parenting PlanChild CustodyRelocationVisitation RightsChild Sexual AbuseImputed IncomeChild SupportParental RightsAppellate ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
32
Case No. W2011-01649-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Rolando Toyos v. Amanda G. Hammock

This case involves a direct appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County concerning child custody, relocation, and attorney fees. The primary residential parent, Mother Amanda G. Hammock, notified Father Rolando Toyos of her intent to relocate. Father opposed the relocation and petitioned to be named the child's primary residential parent. The trial court found a material change in circumstances but determined that the child's best interests were served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent and allowed her relocation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court's decision on Mother remaining the primary residential parent, citing Father's anger, its effect on his support system, Mother's remarriage and relocation desire, and Father's unilateral decision-making. However, the appellate court vacated the relocation order and remanded the issue for an evidentiary hearing, finding Father was effectively denied an opportunity to present evidence on relocation. Additionally, the Court of Appeals vacated and reinstated certain financial and decision-making provisions of the 2007 Consent Order, contingent on the relocation outcome. It upheld the trial court's orders for Father to attend parenting training and to address his nanny's attitude towards the Mother, but it vacated the prohibition on overnight visitation by opposite-sex partners in Father's home due to insufficient evidentiary foundation. Finally, the appellate court upheld the award of attorney fees to Mother.

Child CustodyParental RelocationBest Interests of the ChildVisitation RightsChild SupportAttorney FeesModification of Court OrdersJudicial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maynard v. Maynard

Petitioner sought joint legal and physical custody of her children after the respondent, her ex-husband, unilaterally moved with them to Virginia. The Family Court of Essex County initially dismissed the petitioner's application, awarding custody to the respondent. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Family Court should have applied the legal standard for custody relocation cases. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that a custodial parent's move that deprives the noncustodial parent of customary contact is disfavored without exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Joint CustodyChild RelocationFamily LawCustody DisputeAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsBest Interests of the ChildDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActEssex County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2012

Hildebrandt v. Lee

The Family Court denied the mother's application to relocate to Texas with the minor child and granted the father's petition for modification of custody, awarding him sole custody with visitation to the mother. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests. The court considered the mother's and her parents' exclusionary behavior and hostility toward the father, which made it unlikely the father-child relationship would be preserved if relocation occurred. The court also rejected the forensic expert’s opinion due to deficiencies, including the mother’s prior violations of court orders by temporarily leaving the jurisdiction and permanently moving without proper notification. The mother's allegations of sexual improprieties by the father were also found unsubstantiated.

Child CustodyRelocation RequestBest Interests of ChildParental HostilityForensic Expert OpinionVisitation RightsFamily Law AppealNew York CourtsCustody Modification
References
5
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

Burr v. Emmett

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody. The petitioner (father) sought sole custody of his child, Jessie, after the respondent (mother), who had primary physical custody, announced plans to relocate to California. The Family Court granted the father's petition, concluding that the relocation was not in the child's best interest due to existing family ties and the speculative nature of the mother's career aspirations. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the relocating parent bears the burden of proving the move is in the child's best interest, considering various factors related to the child's welfare and parental relationships. The court found no error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence or its ultimate decision to transfer custody.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationParental RelocationBest Interest of the ChildFamily Law AppealVisitation RightsChange of CircumstancesBurden of ProofAppellate AffirmationLaw Guardian Role
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,889 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