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. 07-15-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

in the Interest of D.E.B., S.B., J.B., Children

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother of D.E.B., S.B., and J.B. The trial court ordered termination of parental rights for S.B. and J.B., but not D.E.B. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of S.B. and J.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, citing the mother's long history of inability to provide for her children's physical and emotional needs, protect them from danger, and successfully complete court-ordered service plans. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding.

Termination of Parental RightsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFamily LawChild NeglectParental UnfitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewDue ProcessTexas Law
References
13
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. 11-10-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Nathan Park, Individually and D/B/A Park Mowing Service v. Claude Payne D/B/A Haskell Tractor Service

Claude Payne d/b/a Haskell Tractor Service filed a breach of contract suit against Nathan Park d/b/a Park Mowing Service. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Payne, awarding damages and attorney's fees. Park appealed, contending Haskell Tractor violated the contract by failing to provide required documentation and that the evidence was insufficient for the damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Park waived the defense of material breach by not requesting additional findings and that the evidence sufficiently supported the award of lost profits and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementLost ProfitsAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachWaiver of DefenseAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Court of AppealsContract Law
References
10
Case No. 13-12-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2013

Juan Alfredo Martinez v. Arthur Beckwith and Benton Beckwith D/B/A B & B Farms

Juan Alfredo Martinez appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Arthur Beckwith, who was sued alongside Benton Beckwith d/b/a B&B Farms for work-related injuries. Martinez raised three issues on appeal: lack of proper notice for the summary judgment hearing, Arthur Beckwith's alleged waiver of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) affirmative defense, and an error in granting summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Martinez was not prejudiced by the notice issue, Arthur Beckwith had properly pled his TWCA defense, and summary judgment was appropriate as Beckwith conclusively established his TWCA defense, which Martinez failed to rebut with genuine issues of material fact regarding his employment and insurance coverage.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActAffirmative DefenseAppellate ProcedureNotice RequirementWaiverEmployment LawWork-Related InjuryDue ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 10-10-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

Rebecca S., Michael W., and Billy B. appealed a trial court's judgment in Johnson County, Texas, terminating their parental rights to R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S. The jury found grounds for termination, including endangerment due to unstable living conditions, exposure to individuals with histories of abuse/neglect, and the parents' mental deficiencies. The appeals court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to refuse a requested jury charge related to retaining jurisdiction under Section 263.403.

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment
References
11
Case No. CAF 10-01972
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2011

B., ROYFIK, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal by the respondent mother from a Family Court order terminating her parental rights over her son, Royfik B., due to mental illness, pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the petitioner, Wayne County Department of Social Services, provided clear and convincing evidence that the mother is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide adequate care for the child due to her mental illness, as defined by the Social Services Law. A social worker testified about the mother's treatment progress but did not offer an opinion on her parenting ability. The court also dismissed the mother's contention regarding mental retardation as it was not the basis of the order.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealClear and Convincing EvidenceChild NeglectAppellate ReviewInability to Provide CareParental Fitness
References
5
Case No. 06-10-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

in the Interest of B. G. M., a Child

Bud and Rhonda Marks appealed a trial court's judgment that removed their child, B.G.M., from their conservatorship and appointed Sally Tarter as the sole managing conservator. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) initiated the suit due to concerns about B.G.M.'s physical health, emotional development, and educational neglect. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of evidence, which included medical neglect, unsanitary living conditions, lack of education, and B.G.M.'s stated fear of her father. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that appointing the parents as managing conservators would significantly impair B.G.M.'s physical health or emotional development. The appellate court also concluded that while the admission of an investigator's affidavit was erroneous, it did not cause an improper judgment given the other substantial evidence.

Child conservatorshipParental rightsChild neglectEmotional impairmentPhysical impairmentEducational neglectMedical neglectBest interest of childSufficiency of evidenceAbuse of discretion
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,417 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