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. 03-22-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. PFLAG, Inc. and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of M.B., a Minor

This appeal concerns temporary injunctions issued against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner. The injunctions prevent DFPS from investigating parents for child abuse solely based on providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, a policy adopted following an Attorney General opinion and Governor's directive. The Court affirmed the injunctions, finding that the appellees (families with transgender children and PFLAG, Inc.) had standing, their claims were ripe and not moot, and sovereign immunity was waived. The court concluded that DFPS's policy constituted an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted without proper procedures, and interfered with fundamental parental and children's constitutional rights.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse investigationAdministrative Procedure ActParental rightsConstitutional rightsStandingRipenessMootnessSovereign immunityTexas law
References
28
Case No. 03-11-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2012

Brian Hunt v. State of Texas for the Protection of K. C.

Brian Hunt appealed a family-violence protective order issued against him, challenging the trial court's failure to reschedule a hearing, denial of his right to confront his accuser, finding of a familial relationship with K. C., and the basis of the protective order on alleged false statements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that Hunt waived his procedural rights by not attending the hearing. The court further found that K. C.'s uncontroverted testimony provided legally sufficient evidence to establish dating violence, which constitutes family violence under Texas law, thus supporting the protective order. Hunt's claims of false allegations lacked evidentiary support in the record and were therefore overruled.

Family ViolenceProtective OrderDue ProcessRight to ConfrontationDating ViolenceSufficiency of EvidenceDefault JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyPro Se Litigation
References
9
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which affirmed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' finding of child neglect against him. This finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, effectively prohibiting his future employment with children. Carrizales initially sought judicial review in the district court, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the basis for his appeal, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Carrizales introduced an argument for an inherent right to judicial review, claiming his constitutional liberty interest in employment was violated. However, the appellate court ruled that this constitutional argument was not preserved in the district court and therefore could not be considered on appeal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carrizales's petition.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeChild NeglectTexas Family CodeAdministrative Procedure ActSubject-Matter JurisdictionLiberty InterestConstitutional ClaimWaiver of IssueAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 01-10-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2011

Michael Conti and Rainbow Conti v. Department of Family and Protective Services

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for Michael and Rainbow Conti to their child E.C. The Contis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for termination, an abused discretion in denying a motion for continuance, and improper closing arguments by opposing counsel. The court found that the Contis failed to challenge all grounds for termination and that substantial evidence supported the finding that termination was in E.C.'s best interest, citing Michael's prior indecency conviction and sexual abuse of another child in the home, which Rainbow failed to protect against. The court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance motions or the objections to closing arguments, given the procedural history and the latitude afforded to trial counsel.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseSexual AbuseBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceMotion for ContinuanceIneffective Assistance of CounselClosing ArgumentsFamily LawAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01170 [191 AD3d 1203]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Police Benevolent & Protective Assn., Inc.)

The City of Troy appealed a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration and granted the Troy Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the City's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to fill a vacant captain position within 30 days from a civil service list. The City argued that the CBA provision conflicted with Civil Service Law § 61 (1) and public policy. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the CBA provision did not violate Civil Service Law § 61 or public policy, as the City voluntarily agreed to a time frame for promotion and retained discretion to choose from the top three candidates. The Court also determined that standing and compliance with grievance procedures were matters for the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic PolicyPromotional PracticesMunicipal CorporationPolice DepartmentGrievanceStay ArbitrationCompel Arbitration
References
24
Case No. 03-22-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2023

Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

Jonathan Timothy Noyes appeals a lifetime protective order issued against him for the protection of his ex-girlfriend, Samantha Jo Voges. Noyes challenged the order on five grounds, asserting the district court failed to make required fact findings, that the evidence was insufficient, that his communication was constitutionally protected speech, that the underlying harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague, and that the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence. The State filed an application for a protective order after Voges reported thousands of threatening text messages, calls from blocked and spoofed numbers, and social media harassment from Noyes following their breakup. Voges testified about Noyes's controlling behavior, physical altercations, and fear for her safety due to threats to ruin her life, disclose private information, and access her accounts. A detective's investigation confirmed Noyes sent over 1,500 messages, used multiple numbers and emails, installed a tracking device on Voges's car, and attempted to access her bank account, leading to his arrest for stalking. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Voges was a victim of stalking, thus upholding the protective order.

StalkingProtective OrderHarassmentElectronic CommunicationDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFirearm Prohibition
References
19
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 5,838 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