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

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. No. 10-07-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2008

SSHG, LLC D/B/A Support Services Holdings Group and Legacy Support Services, LTD. v. Eric Ian Lewis

Eric Ian Lewis, an employee of SSHG, LLC, was injured on the job while using an electric hand planer. He sued his employer, a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, for negligence. A jury found for Lewis, and SSG appealed the judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of obvious dangers and that Lewis's own negligence caused the injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the danger of using the planer on small pieces of wood without a jig was not obvious or commonly known to Lewis, thus SSG owed a duty to train and warn. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against SSG.

Workplace NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplacePower Tool InjuryWorker's Compensation NonsubscriberProximate CauseContributory Negligence (defense denied)Jury Verdict AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coniglio v. Coniglio

This is a proceeding under New York's Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL) initiated to seek child support for Jennifer Coniglio from her father, the respondent. A hearing examiner initially recommended a bifurcated support order of $60 per week during the respondent's employment season and $25 per week during unemployment, based on his seasonal construction work. The respondent objected to these findings, challenging the court's jurisdiction due to a pre-existing divorce decree that included child support provisions. Judge Anthony F. Bonadio, referencing Lebedeff v Lebedeff and Nichols v Bardua, ruled that the USDL provides an additional remedy, not a modification, and affirmed the court's jurisdiction to determine support de novo, without being bound by the Supreme Court decree. Considering the approximate equal incomes of both parents, the court set a new support order for the respondent at $30 per week, to be paid through the support collection unit, and ordered him to maintain medical and dental insurance for Jennifer Coniglio as per the separation agreement.

Child Support EnforcementUniform Support of Dependents LawJurisdictional DisputeDe Novo DeterminationParental Financial ContributionSeasonal Employment IncomeUnemployment Benefits ConsiderationMedical Insurance ProvisionDivorce Decree InteractionSupport Collection Unit
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1986

Isabellita S. v. John S.

This case addresses a pregnant petitioner's request for spousal support from her separated but still-married husband. The respondent argued he should not be liable for support or pregnancy-related expenses, claiming the child was not his and that her unemployment due to pregnancy was a 'voluntarily induced condition.' The court dismissed these arguments, asserting that pregnancy is a legitimate medical condition impacting expenses and ability to work, and distinguishing it for spousal support would violate equal protection. Furthermore, the court denied the respondent's request to introduce evidence challenging paternity or to order fetal blood tests, deeming them irrelevant to the spousal support petition for the wife. Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay $40 per week for the petitioner's support, noting that the order could be reviewed after the child's birth.

Spousal SupportPregnancy DiscriminationEqual ProtectionPresumption of LegitimacyPaternity TestingFamily LawMarital SeparationDisability BenefitsUnemployment BenefitsConstitutional Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

K.B.J. v. T.J.

This is a contested divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision concerning primary residential parent, allocation of marital debt, and denial of spousal support. The trial court had found the Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct but made him the primary residential parent and denied spousal support to the Wife, while allocating significant marital debt to her. The appellate court reversed the decision on primary residential parent status and parenting schedule, designating the Wife as the primary residential parent with final decision-making authority. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the allocation of marital debt to the Wife and the denial of spousal support, citing the Husband's financial burden and the Wife's earning capacity. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine child support based on the modified parenting schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital DebtSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPrimary Residential ParentParenting TimeFinancial Responsibility
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 8,102 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