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. 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. 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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 3858 v. City of Germantown

This case involves the International Association of Firefighters Local 3858 (Association) suing the City of Germantown and its officials for their refusal to recognize the union and deduct membership dues from firefighters' wages, as per Tennessee Code Annotated § 7-51-204. The Association moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the statute mandated dues deduction. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional. The court found that the Association qualified as an 'employee association' under the statute's plain meaning. However, it ruled that T.C.A. § 7-51-204(b), which selectively exempted certain counties based on population, violated the equal protection guarantees of both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. Due to the inapplicability of the elision doctrine, the entire statute was struck down, leading to the denial of the Plaintiff's motion and the granting of the Defendants' motion.

Summary JudgmentEqual ProtectionStatutory InterpretationUnion DuesFirefighters AssociationT.C.A. § 7-51-204Constitutional LawState ConstitutionsFederal ConstitutionsLegislative Intent
References
47
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. M2024-00362-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Tatum M. Campbell v. T.C. Restaurant Group, LLC

The Plaintiff, Tatum M. Campbell, sued Chris Bullard and T.C. Restaurant Group, LLC for negligence after sustaining a concussion from a fall off a stage at a Nashville music venue. Campbell alleged Bullard, a performer, negligently dropped her, while Bullard claimed she was intoxicated and fell backward. The jury found the defendants not at fault. On appeal, Campbell argued reversible error due to a "lottery lawsuit winner" comment by defense counsel and the admission of evidence about medical leave benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that curative instructions addressed the comment and any error regarding medical leave evidence was harmless as the jury found no liability.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityCollateral Source RuleAppellate ReviewJury VerdictCurative InstructionAbuse of DiscretionHarmless ErrorMedical Leave Benefits
References
36
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00204 [190 AD3d 788]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2021

Yong Qiao Zhao v. A.T.C. Constr. Group Corp.

The plaintiff, Yong Qiao Zhao, appealed from an order regarding his personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) after falling from a ladder. He was injured while disposing of construction debris from one project at a dumpster located at an unrelated project site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which had granted summary judgment to 237 Henry Street Realty, LLC, dismissing the claim against it. The court found no nexus between 237 Henry and the plaintiff's work, as he was not hired to work at their property. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion against A.T.C. Construction Group Corp. due to the existence of triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityNexus RequirementPremises LiabilityConstruction Debris
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,679 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