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. 03-13-00258-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2013

R. P. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

R.P. appealed the termination of her parental rights, initially decided by a jury and affirmed by a district judge in Lampasas County. The appeal challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment, parental conduct, compliance with court orders, and the child's best interest. The court focused on whether R.P. knowingly exposed her child to dangerous conditions, citing Robert's history of domestic violence against R.P. even while pregnant and after birth, often in the child's presence. Despite protective orders and services, R.P.'s continued association with Robert and her own volatile behavior raised concerns about her ability to provide a safe environment. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support both the statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the child's best interest, affirming the judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDomestic ViolenceChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildFamily CodeAppellate ReviewPsychological EvaluationChild CustodyTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. 03-96-00520-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 1997

P.R.I.D.E. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York

P.R.I.D.E., a provider of medical and rehabilitation services, appealed the dismissal of its petition for judicial review by a district court. The original petition sought to overturn a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission order denying P.R.I.D.E. reimbursement for services. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that P.R.I.D.E.'s petition was not timely filed, arriving 56 days past the statutory deadline. P.R.I.D.E. argued for a deemed timely filing based on reliance on mail service, but the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the petition did not meet the established 'ten-day grace period' and P.R.I.D.E. failed to exercise due diligence. The appellate court modified the district court's dismissal to be without prejudice, as the court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of the case.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewTimely FilingJurisdictionAdministrative Procedure ActMailbox RuleAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyTexas LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.R.I.D.E. v. Texas Workers' Cmpensation Commission

P.R.I.D.E., a provider of medical services, sought judicial review after an administrative law judge denied their claim for workers’ compensation medical reimbursement. The district court dismissed P.R.I.D.E.'s petition, ruling it was untimely filed due to delays in postal delivery. P.R.I.D.E. appealed, arguing for a deemed timely filing based on reliance on the United States mail service. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, concluding that P.R.I.D.E. lacked due diligence and did not meet the conditions for a ten-day grace period. However, the appellate court modified the district court's order to strike 'with prejudice', as the lower court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewTimeliness of FilingPlea to the JurisdictionPostal Service DelayAdministrative Procedure ActStatutory InterpretationDue DiligenceAppellate ReviewJurisdiction
References
3
Case No. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. M2002-02242-COA-R3-CV, 3300DV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2004

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.

This case involves a child custody dispute where the mother, B. M. M., and father, P. R. M., initially had a parenting plan granting the mother primary residential parent status with supervised visitation for the father due to the mother's sexual abuse concerns. The father petitioned for unsupervised visitation, and the mother sought to relocate to Florida with their daughter. The trial court denied the mother's relocation and granted the father unsupervised visitation, prompting the mother to defy the order by moving to Florida. Consequently, the father was granted emergency custody, the mother was found in criminal contempt, and was ordered to pay the father's private investigator fees and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions, concluding that the trial court correctly found no basis for the mother's sexual abuse allegations and that her actions were detrimental to the child's well-being and relationship with the father.

Child CustodyParental RelocationSupervised VisitationCriminal ContemptParental AlienationSexual Abuse AllegationsBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstancesAttorney's FeesPrivate Investigator Fees
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of A.P.P., a Minor Child

This case involves an appeal brought by the biological mother of A.P.P. following a default judgment that removed her as the sole managing conservator and appointed the biological father as a joint managing conservator. The appellant contended that the trial court erred by ordering the default judgment and denying her motion for new trial. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial based on the "Craddock" elements, which require establishing that the failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no delay or injury to the plaintiff. The court found that the appellant satisfied all three prongs, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Default Judgment ReversalMotion for New TrialCraddock TestParent-Child ConservatorshipChild Custody ModificationBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceMeritorious Defense
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04839
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Of Doe 44 v. Erik P.R.

Plaintiffs, including Of Doe 44, initiated actions under the Child Victims Act against Erik P.R. for alleged sexual abuse. They sought partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that a prior Family Court Act article 10 proceeding collaterally estopped the defendant. The Supreme Court granted this motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision and denied the motion. The majority opinion held that collateral estoppel should not apply because the prior Family Court proceeding relied heavily on hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible in the civil actions, despite having the same burden of proof. Justice Bannister dissented, arguing that the conditions for collateral estoppel were met, as the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding, and the hearsay evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

Child Victims ActSexual Abuse AllegationsCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFamily Court ActHearsay EvidenceBurden of ProofPrior ProceedingsIdentity of Issue
References
21
Case No. E2014-02277-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JULY 16, 2015
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Randy R. Moss, Jr. v. Dan P. Evans

This appeal concerns an election contest where Randy R. Moss, Jr. challenged Dan P. Evans' qualifications for Chief Administrative Officer of the McMinn County Highway Department. The Trial Court had dismissed Moss's challenge, concluding it lacked jurisdiction as the Tennessee Highway Officials Certification Board (THOCB) was the exclusive arbiter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against the Election Commission but reversed the dismissal against Evans, holding that the Trial Court erred in declining jurisdiction. The appellate court found that challenging a candidate's qualifications through an election contest is a permissible avenue, even if administrative remedies were not exhausted. The case was remanded for further proceedings against Evans.

Election ContestCandidate QualificationsHighway CommissionerMcMinn CountySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTennessee Court of AppealsBallot Certification
References
23
Case No. 03-08-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2010

Ronald R. Wagner v. Roberto D'Lorm and Edward P. Dancause

Appellant Ronald R. Wagner sued appellees Roberto D'Lorm and his attorney Edward P. Dancause in Travis County district court, seeking a declaration that a default judgment previously obtained against him in Zapata County was void due to the Zapata County court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Wagner. The Travis County trial court granted D'Lorm's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to declare another district court's judgment void, and denied Wagner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Wagner contended the trial court erred by not recognizing that a void judgment is subject to collateral attack in a court of equal jurisdiction. The appellate court held that a co-equal court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to declare a void judgment from another court to be void. It found Wagner's pleadings sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's dismissal order, and remanded the cause for further proceedings, without addressing the denial of summary judgment.

Collateral AttackVoid JudgmentSubject-Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionDefault JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLack of Service
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,233 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