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. C.A. No. H-78-1831 (Consolidated Multidistrict Litigation)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1980

In Re Alien Children Education Litigation

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Ann. tit. 2, § 21.031, which prohibited the use of state funds to educate undocumented children and allowed local school districts to exclude them or charge tuition. Plaintiffs, undocumented school-age children, argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by federal law, and conflicted with international law. Judge SEALS of the Southern District of Texas found the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that access to education is a fundamental right, and the statute imposed an absolute deprivation of this right on undocumented children, who are "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state. The state's arguments regarding fiscal integrity and deterrence of immigration were found not to be compelling governmental interests. The court issued a permanent injunction against the Commissioner of Education, preventing the implementation of the challenged sections of the Texas Education Code.

Undocumented ChildrenPublic Education AccessEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentState Statute UnconstitutionalityImmigration Status DiscriminationFundamental Rights (Education)Judicial ScrutinyFiscal Policy (State)Class Action
References
15
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summers v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc.

The Attorney General initiated a lawsuit to dissolve two nonprofit public benefit corporations, Cherokee Children and Family Services, Inc. (CCFS) and Cherokee Children Nutrition, Inc. (CCN). The Attorney General alleged that the corporations had abandoned their charitable purposes and engaged in various forms of self-dealing, including excessive compensation to the executive director and her family, questionable real estate transactions, and problematic investments. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General, ordering dissolution and the appointment of a receiver. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the corporations were exploited for private monetary gain rather than serving public benefit, thus justifying their dissolution.

Nonprofit DissolutionCorporate GovernanceFiduciary Duty BreachPrivate InurementSelf-DealingPublic Benefit CorporationCharitable Purpose AbandonmentSummary JudgmentAttorney General ActionTennessee Corporate Law
References
51
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. 2-03-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

in the Interest of T.N. and M.N., Children

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of J.N. (Mother) and S.N. (Father) to their children, T.N. and M.N. The parents appealed the termination, challenging the children's attorney's performance, trial court's rulings on challenges for cause, and the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment and the children's best interest. The court found Mother lacked standing for her complaints and failed to preserve other issues. For Father, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony and found sufficient evidence of endangerment due to his conduct, including leaving children with a substance-abusing grandmother and Mother, and their own domestic violence. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in the children's best interest, citing Father's instability and limited participation in recommended programs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyAttorney Ad LitemDue ProcessChallenges for CauseExpert TestimonyLay Testimony
References
21
Case No. 13-10-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2010

in the Interest of E. S. and A. G., Children

V.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children, E.S. and A.G. The trial court's decision was based on findings that V.S. violated statutory grounds for termination, specifically by failing to comply with a court-ordered family service plan, and that termination was in the children's best interest. The children were removed from V.S.'s care after E.S. sustained severe, non-accidental burns, which medical experts concluded were consistent with head immersion in scalding water. V.S. initially lied about the circumstances to protect the children's father, A.U.G., and later pleaded guilty to hindering his apprehension. She also failed to complete required classes, evaluations, maintain stable housing, or consistent visitation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the termination of V.S.'s parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-ComplianceDomestic ViolenceLegal Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. 02-13-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2013

in the Interest of A.D.C. and J.D.C., Children

This case concerns J.W.S. (Father)'s appeal of the termination of his parental rights to his two children, A.D.C. and J.D.C. The children were initially removed from Mother's care in November 2011 due to a violent domestic dispute and long-standing neglect. Father, despite prior knowledge of endangering conditions, failed to protect the children and did not consistently comply with court-ordered services, including a critical batterer's intervention program. The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that Father allowed the children to remain in dangerous surroundings and failed to meet his service plan obligations. The court also determined that termination was in the children's best interest, emphasizing their need for stability and specialized care which was provided by their foster family, in contrast to Father's unstable living situation and history of domestic violence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectDomestic ViolenceChild Protective ServicesSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildFamily LawAppellate ReviewFoster CareService Plan Non-Compliance
References
28
Case No. 07-09-0101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2009

in the Interest of D.D.D.K., C.E.K., Jr. and C.E.K., Children

This case involves an appeal by Charles and Nancy from a final order terminating their parental rights to their three minor children. The appellants challenged the admission of hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse and the sufficiency of evidence supporting findings of endangerment and the children's best interest. The court heard extensive testimony about the children suffering multiple instances of sexual abuse, including by a relative and later by strangers in a motel, often while the parents were present and using drugs. All children tested positive for illicit substances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the parents' conduct and the conditions they allowed endangered the children, and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual AbuseDrug AbuseChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildTexas Family LawAppellate ReviewFoster Care
References
38
Case No. 13-01-156-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2001

in the Interest of S. Q., C. Q., F. Q., M. Q., and A. Q., Children

Laura Quitugua appealed the termination of her parental rights to her five minor children. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) initiated the termination due to the children living on the streets, alleged sexual abuse between siblings, and Quitugua's failure to complete a family-service plan. Quitugua did not provide suitable housing, remained with an abusive boyfriend, and failed to protect her children from harm. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Quitugua endangered the children's well-being and that termination was in their best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support both the statutory grounds for termination and the determination that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildAbuse of DiscretionMotion for New TrialDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 06-14-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

in the Interest of R.L.C., Jr., R.D.C., K.M.S., and A.M.C., Children

Amy Smith's parental rights to her four children were terminated by the trial court due to her extensive history of drug abuse, criminal justice involvement, and neglectful supervision, which endangered her children's physical and emotional well-being. Smith appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence to show that termination was in the children's best interests. The appellate court, considering various Holley factors such as Smith's continued drug use, lack of stable housing and income, failure to complete treatment programs, and the children's improved conditions in foster care, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that the evidence was factually sufficient to form a firm belief or conviction that termination was in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbuseBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyTexas Family CodeSubstance Abuse DisorderFoster CareNeglectful SupervisionHolley Factors
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,088 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