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. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. 13-14-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mario Duran and Maria Duran

This case involves an appeal from the 92nd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, regarding the denial of motions for new trial to vacate no-answer and post-answer default judgments entered against Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. in favor of Mario and Maria Duran. The Durans had sued Gonzalez for breach of contract, negligence, and DTPA violations related to a loan for property taxes and alleged failure to purchase insurance, later adding Alamo Home Finance as a defendant. Appellants argued for a new trial based on strict non-compliance with rules of service for Alamo and lack of proper notice of trial settings for Gonzalez. Additionally, both appellants contended they met the Craddock test requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motions for new trial, finding that Alamo was not served in strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez did not receive appropriate notice of trial settings, and both parties satisfied the Craddock equitable factors. The court also denied both parties' motions for appellate sanctions. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialStrict ComplianceService of ProcessDue ProcessCraddock TestAppellate SanctionsBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
References
22
Case No. 01-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

in Re TMX Finance of Texas, Inc., TitleMax of Texas, Inc., and TMX Finance LLC

Relators (TMX Finance entities) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to prevent the deposition of Otto Bielss. LoanStar argues that Bielss has unique and superior personal knowledge relevant to the case, specifically concerning illegal marketing tactics involving accessing DMV records to acquire LoanStar's customers. LoanStar asserts Bielss, as the former Senior Vice President of Operations for the Texas market, was aware of these allegations and implemented aggressive growth strategies contributing to the misconduct. The District Court previously denied the Relators' motion, finding Bielss to be a fact witness actively involved in TitleMax's operations. LoanStar requests the Court deny the Relators' Petition and affirm the District Court's decision.

MandamusApex Deposition DoctrineDiscoveryFact WitnessCorporate RepresentativeTexas Civil ProcedureIllegal MarketingDMV RecordsLoanStarTitleMax
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Edward Reeder v. Jo Beth (Curtis) Reeder

This post-divorce action addresses a father's request to reduce child support following the emancipation of the older child. The mother opposed this, citing the younger child's extracurricular expenses and the father's infrequent visitation, and also sought payment for unpaid child support from 2002. The trial court initially granted the father a reduction, established a new parenting plan with reduced visitation, and included an upward deviation in child support for the younger child, while also finding the father in willful civil contempt for the 2002 arrearage. On appeal, the decision was largely affirmed, but the finding of willful contempt was reversed due to the father's injury-related unemployment in 2002. Additionally, the appellate court mandated prejudgment interest on the child support arrearage from 2002 and remanded the case for a determination of the mother's appellate attorney fees.

Post-divorceChild supportChild emancipationParenting plan modificationVisitation rightsUpward deviationChild Support GuidelinesChild support arrearagePrejudgment interestCivil contempt
References
35
Case No. 11-18-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

William R. Hickey v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.

William R. Hickey appeals the denial of his motion to set aside a no-answer default judgment entered against him. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. filed a petition to foreclose on Hickey's manufactured home after he defaulted on a retail installment contract. Substituted service was granted and executed by posting citation on Hickey's gate after personal service attempts failed. Hickey's motion to set aside the default judgment, asserting improper service and a meritorious defense, was denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that substituted service was properly accomplished and Hickey's failure to answer was due to conscious indifference, failing the first prong of the Craddock test.

Default JudgmentSubstituted ServiceMotion to Set AsideAppellate ReviewDue DiligenceService of ProcessCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseForeclosure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Case No. 01A01-9506-CV-00255
Regular Panel Decision

Vooys v. Turner

The case concerns an appeal by the Husband challenging the trial court's award of post-judgment interest to the Wife on $185,000. These funds were deposited by the Husband with the court clerk as the purchase price for the marital residence, which had been awarded to the Wife. During the initial appeal of the divorce decree, Husband appealed the award of the house and successfully moved to stay execution of the judgment without bond, requesting the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account. After the initial judgment was affirmed, Wife sought post-judgment interest. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court held that a party depositing funds into court does not avoid statutory post-judgment interest unless the payment is an unconditional satisfaction of the judgment, especially when the depositor appeals and obtains a stay, thus depriving the other party of the funds' use.

Post-judgment interestDivorceAppellate reviewFunds deposited in courtStay of executionMarital propertyAlimony in solidoStatutory interpretationRule 67.03Rule 67.04
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,974 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