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

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. 04-08-00522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

in the Interest of V.G., Children

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Victor and Maricruz to their five children (V.G., E.G., A.G., J.G., JA.G.). The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services removed the children after concerns about abuse and neglect, particularly regarding J.G., who was diagnosed with psychosocial dwarfism due to severe emotional abuse. Medical and counseling experts testified that returning the children to their parents would be unsafe due to the parents' failure to accept responsibility for the abuse and neglect. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights and that it was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectPsychosocial DwarfismEmotional AbuseMedical NeglectAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
38
Case No. 01-15-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children

This is an appellant's brief appealing the termination of parental rights for children A.G. and F.G., involving S.F. (mother) and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). DFPS intervened after reports of child neglect, including F.G. found unsupervised. The mother, S.F., has a history of mental health issues (depression, bipolar disorder), marijuana use, and unstable housing, and allegedly failed to comply with court-ordered service plans. The trial court terminated her parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), and (O), also finding it to be in the children's best interest. The appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination and the 'best interest' finding, emphasizing A.G.'s expressed desire against termination and potential instability in the children's current kinship placement with their godmother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectInsufficient EvidenceBest Interest of ChildSubstance AbuseMental Health IssuesKinship PlacementDomestic RelationsTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. 12-18-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2018

in the Interest of J. G. and J. G., Children

R.G. appealed the termination of her parental rights concerning her two children, J.G.1 and J.G.2, challenging the trial court's denial of a continuance and a new trial, and the sufficiency of evidence for termination. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination due to allegations of domestic violence and drug use, with R.G. and some children testing positive for methamphetamine. R.G. consistently refused court-ordered drug tests and evaluations, citing distrust of the Department. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDue ProcessMotion for ContinuanceBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectFamily Law
References
28
Case No. No. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. 13-02-361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

in the Interest of A.G. & D.G., Minors

Cindy Mahoney Arnold appealed a trial court's decision regarding child support calculations for her two children, A.G. and D.G., whose paternity was admitted by Abraham Garcia, III. Arnold argued that the trial court erred by not including Garcia's workers' compensation payments when determining his net resources for child support. The appellate court reviewed the Texas Family Code, specifically Section 154.062(a) and (b)(5), which explicitly includes workers' compensation benefits as part of resources. The court found that the trial court's exclusion of these benefits directly contravened the family code's instructions and constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Child SupportPaternityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNet ResourcesAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorFinancial CalculationRemand
References
8
Case No. 02-12-00141-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2012

in the Interest of S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., the Children

This case involves an appeal by a mother against the termination of her parental rights to her two children, S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., by the 431st District Court of Denton County. The Second District of Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The termination was based on grounds of endangering conduct due to the Mother's extensive history of drug abuse, including prescription medications and illegal drugs, which led to S.B.G.-R. being born addicted and multiple removals of the children by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Mother's challenges regarding jury instructions on wealth and the attorney ad litem's representation of S.I.-M.G. were overruled, with the appellate court finding no error in the lower court's decision.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbusePrescription Drug AddictionChild WelfareAppellate ReviewBest Interest of ChildSubstance Abuse TreatmentProbation ViolationJury Instructions
References
47
Case No. NO. 01-08-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Troy J. Shuttleworth v. G & a Outsourcing, Inc. D/B/A G & a Partners

This case involves an appeal by Troy Shuttleworth, Questco, Inc., and U.S.A. Staffing, Inc. (the 'Shuttleworth Defendants') against G&A Outsourcing, Inc. d/b/a G&A Partners ('G&A') regarding a temporary injunction. G&A, a professional employer organization, sued Shuttleworth, a former sales representative, for breaching an employment agreement's non-compete/non-solicitation provision and misappropriating confidential information after he resigned to work for U.S.A. Staffing and Questco. G&A sought injunctive relief and damages in Harris County, while the Shuttleworth Defendants argued the Harris County trial court lacked jurisdiction, citing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 65.023(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that section 65.023(a) did not apply because G&A's request for injunctive relief was ancillary to its claims for substantial damages arising from breach of contract and tortious acts. Thus, the temporary injunction entered by the trial court was upheld.

Non-compete agreementNon-solicitationTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMisappropriation of trade secretsTortious interferenceVenueJurisdictionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployment agreement
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06808
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Matter of C.G. (E.G.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning a Family Court's finding of neglect against respondent mother, E.G., regarding her child, C.G. The court affirmed the finding of neglect, citing two instances of the mother's violent and belligerent conduct that necessitated social services intervention to ensure the child's safety and well-being. These incidents included an attempted stabbing and an altercation with police in Texas that frightened and injured the child. The court determined the child's emotional well-being was at imminent risk due to the mother's actions. The appeal of the dispositional order was dismissed as moot because its terms had expired, and the child had been discharged back to the mother's care. The court also rejected the mother's contention regarding conforming pleadings to proof, finding ample notice was provided.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineFact-Finding DeterminationDispositional OrderChild SafetyProtective ServicesViolent Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs P.G. and D.G., on behalf of their minor child J.G., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). They sought reimbursement for J.G.'s enrollment at Eagle Hill School for the 2010-2011 academic year, alleging the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The court reviewed an administrative decision by a State Review Officer (SRO) from April 6, 2012, which found DOE's individualized education program (IEP) for J.G. adequate and reversed a prior Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision. The court denied the parents' motion in part and granted the DOE's motion in part, affirming the SRO's findings on the IEP's procedural and substantive soundness. However, the court remanded the issue of the appropriateness of a 12:1:1 classroom placement to the SRO for further consideration.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementAdministrative ReviewState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerProcedural AdequacySubstantive Adequacy
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 939 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