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. 03-02-00030-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. 09-04-347 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2004

in Re Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock and C.A.T.B.

The relators, Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock, and C.A.T.B., petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Larry Thorne, presiding judge of the 317th District Court, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an order for Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The underlying dispute involved a bill of review granted to David Castro, which voided a prior termination of his parental rights and subsequently Matthew Bullock's adoption. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lower court had jurisdiction to grant the bill of review despite statutory limitations. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the statutory six-month limitation for challenging termination and adoption orders (Texas Family Code Ann. §§ 161.211 & 162.012) is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and was waived by the relators. Thus, the lower court did not abuse its discretion, and the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Parental Rights TerminationAdoption ProceedingsWrit of MandamusSubject Matter JurisdictionBill of ReviewAffirmative DefensesTexas Family LawStatutory LimitationsJudicial DiscretionAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. E2003-01685-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2004

Randall C. Hagy v. Commisssioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Tennessee Distribution, Inc.

Randall C. Hagy was discharged from his employment with Tennessee Distribution, Inc. after refusing to handle materials he deemed offensive to his religious beliefs. The Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied Hagy unemployment benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court for Sullivan County. Hagy appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, raising issues concerning the evidentiary support for the decision, alleged procedural violations of his right to a jury trial, and violations of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Hagy was discharged for misconduct due to his refusal to perform job duties. The court also determined that the unemployment compensation law was a neutral and generally applicable law, thus not violating Hagy's free exercise of religion, and declined to address the jury trial issue as it was not raised in the lower court.

Unemployment CompensationReligious DiscriminationEmployee MisconductRefusal to WorkFreedom of ReligionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawChancery CourtCourt of Appeals
References
9
Case No. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
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
Case No. 07-03-0077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2003

in the Interest of T. C. and Baby Boy Cortez, Children

Julie Cortez appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two sons, T.C. and Baby Boy C., by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. She contended the proceedings were fundamentally unfair due to the Department's service plans implying improper behavior on her part, despite their ultimate goal of termination. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court ruled that her point of error was not preserved for review because no complaint was made in the trial court, the service plans were not in the record, and her point was not included in the required statement of points for appeal.

Parental RightsTermination of Parental RightsChild WelfareDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureFamily LawSubstance AbuseChild NeglectTexas Court of AppealsEvidentiary Rules
References
8
Case No. 12-02-00099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2003

Tommie J. Denson v. T.D.C.J.-I.D.

Inmate Tommie J. Denson filed a civil suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (T.D.C.J.-I.D.), University of Texas Medical Branch (U.T.M.B.), and numerous employees for a hand injury sustained in prison. Denson alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, retaliation, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, as well as negligence and other claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and medical malpractice under the MLIIA. The trial court initially granted summary judgments for the defendants and dismissed the medical malpractice claims due to an unqualified expert report. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of MLIIA claims and many summary judgments for the institutional defendants. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded several key claims against the individual employees and certain institutional claims, including those related to the negligent use of tangible property under TTCA and Section 1983 claims involving the Eighth Amendment, conspiracy, and retaliation.

Inmate RightsMedical MalpracticeDeliberate IndifferenceSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityQualified ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActCivil Rights ViolationRetaliation
References
73
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. M2016-01109-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

David R. Smith v. The Tennessee National Guard

This case involves a military service member's claim against the Tennessee National Guard pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, a decision affirmed in previous appeals based on sovereign immunity and the accrual date of the claim. In this third appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208 and whether Smith's cause of action accrued prior to July 1, 2014. The court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, holding that Smith's USERRA claim against the Tennessee National Guard did not accrue until July 1, 2014, when sovereign immunity was waived, thereby providing a judicial remedy. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

USERRA ClaimsSovereign Immunity WaiverCause of Action AccrualConstitutional LawSupremacy ClauseMilitary Employment RightsState Court JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate Procedure
References
36
Case No. 2018-02-0004
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2019

Good, Willis T. v. Vickers Concrete Reinforcing, Inc.

The employee, Willis T. Good, sustained a work-related back injury while employed by Vickers Concrete Reinforcing, Inc. A settlement agreement was reached for permanent partial disability benefits, allowing the employee to petition for additional benefits after the initial compensation period. Upon the expiration of this period, the employee sought increased benefits, contending his new wages were less than 80% of his pre-injury average weekly wage, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(a)(2)(C). The employer's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial court, which found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employee's status as an hourly or salaried worker in his subsequent employment and the interpretation of 'wages'. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, concurring that a factual dispute precluded summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilitySummary JudgmentWage CalculationAppeals BoardEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsSettlement AgreementStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,813 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