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. 10-14-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

in the Interest of Y.H.T., A.M.T. and R.S.T., Children

Appellant Teisa I. Tupou-Pati challenged the trial court's dismissal of her petition seeking managing conservatorship of her grandchildren, Y.H.T., A.M.T., and R.S.T. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellant lacked standing to file the suit. The court found that the appellant did not satisfy the standing requirements under Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), as the children were not in her custody for the specified period before the petition was filed. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant's motions for new trial and to reinstate, as the arguments regarding the children's endangerment were not timely asserted in the original petition and the evidence presented in post-judgment affidavits was not newly discovered.

Family LawChild ConservatorshipStandingAppellate ReviewTexas Family CodeDismissalGrandparent RightsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionMotion for New Trial
References
24
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tanya T.

This case concerns an appeal from an Albany County Family Court order which adjudicated four children, Tanya T., Tabitha T., Deion T., and Davonna T., as abused and/or neglected. The petition alleged that their father sexually molested Davonna in Deion’s presence. The Family Court issued orders of supervision and protection, mandating treatment for the father and prohibiting visitation. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court’s findings, determining that the children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by behavioral changes, expert testimony, and consistent statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the father's visitation petition, concluding it was not in the children's best interests due to their fear and the father's history of violence.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual MolestationCorroboration of Child StatementsBehavioral ChangesExpert TestimonyDenial of VisitationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 08-11-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2012

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes, as Next Friend of Isabel G. Maes, a Minor Child and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P. A.

Vincent Maes sustained a spinal injury in 2000 from a motor vehicle accident, leading to a lumbar laminectomy in 2001 by Dr. Paul Cho, an employee of El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG). Following the surgery, Mr. Maes allegedly experienced severe neurological issues. In 2010, Vincent and Cynthia Maes, acting as next friend for their minor daughter Isabel, along with The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), filed a lawsuit against EPOSG, asserting claims for Isabel's loss of parental consortium and alleging vicarious liability for Dr. Cho's negligence. EPOSG sought summary judgment, contending that Isabel's claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to Mr. Maes's original claim and also by the prior dismissal of Mr. Maes's claim with prejudice in 2004. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EPOSG. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that claims for loss of parental consortium are derivative in nature and are consequently extinguished when the statute of limitations on the injured parent's underlying claim expires or when that underlying claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Medical MalpracticeParental ConsortiumSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDerivative ClaimsDismissal with PrejudiceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeHealth Care LiabilityMinor's ClaimsAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. M2008-01174-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

In Re B.D., R.M.T. & V.F.T.

Mother Regina C. and Father Nicholas T. appealed the Juvenile Court's decision to terminate their parental rights to children B.D., R.M.T., and V.F.T. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights, citing his substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and the children's best interests. For Mother, while the court reversed the grounds of substantial noncompliance and abandonment by failure to visit, it upheld the termination based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and the persistence of conditions, specifically her involvement in domestic violence and current homelessness. The court concluded that terminating both parents' rights was in the children's best interests, affirming the juvenile court's judgment in part and reversing in part.

Parental Rights TerminationJuvenile LawChild AbusePermanency PlanBest Interests of the ChildAbandonmentSubstantial NoncomplianceDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewGuardianship
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maes ex rel. Maes v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A.

Vincent and Cynthia Maes, as next friend of their minor daughter Isabel, and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG). Isabel's claim was for loss of parental consortium due to her father Vincent Maes's alleged disabling injury following surgery performed by an EPOSG employee, Dr. Paul Cho, in 2001. Vincent Maes's initial lawsuit against EPOSG was dismissed with prejudice in 2004, and the two-year statute of limitations for his underlying claim expired in 2003. EPOSG moved for summary judgment, arguing Isabel's claims were time-barred and barred by the prior dismissal of her father's underlying claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Isabel's derivative loss of parental consortium claims were extinguished by both the running of the statute of limitations on her father's claim and its prior dismissal with prejudice.

medical malpracticeloss of parental consortiumstatute of limitationssummary judgmentderivative claimshealthcare liabilityminor's claimsprior litigationdismissal with prejudiceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
26
Case No. 08-06-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2007

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group

Vincent and Cynthia Maes and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania appealed the dismissal of a health care liability suit against El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group (EPOSG). The Maeses alleged negligence and vicarious liability against EPOSG after Vincent Maes suffered severe complications following back surgery by Dr. Paul Cho, an EPOSG neurosurgeon. The trial court dismissed all claims against EPOSG, finding the expert reports insufficient to address EPOSG's breach of the standard of care, even for vicarious liability claims. On appeal, the Court reviewed whether an expert report was necessary for vicarious liability claims and if the severance of claims against EPOSG was proper. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the dismissal of all claims against EPOSG and the severance.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert Report SufficiencyVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorDismissal with PrejudiceSeverance of ClaimsSpinal Surgery ComplicationsNeuroscienceOrthopedic Surgery Group Liability
References
17
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 03-01-00214-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C. And Hobert T. Douglas, II, Individually v. Edward J. Petrus

Appellee Edward J. Petrus sued appellants Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C., and Hobert T. Douglas individually, seeking $47,200 for consulting and expert services provided in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Petrus. Douglas appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial due to inadequate notice of the trial setting and his unpreparedness resulting from mistake. The appellate court found Douglas's amended motion for new trial was untimely and that the record did not support his claim of inadequate notice. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the Craddock test for default judgments applied, Douglas's timely-filed motion failed to establish a meritorious defense with supporting evidence. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

AppealMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialDue ProcessDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseAttorney UnpreparednessSworn Account
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 887 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