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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2015

Tom J. Jones, and All Occupants v. Dinh Tran & Sonny & Anna, LLC

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency, also known as a Pauper's Oath or Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs. It is used by a petitioner to request the court to waive court fees, asserting an inability to pay due to indigency or receipt of public benefits. The affidavit requires the petitioner to provide current, complete, and true financial information, including income sources and amounts, public benefits received, dependents, property, debts, and monthly expenses. The document warns that false statements can lead to prosecution and states that the court may conduct a hearing to verify the financial information before approving or denying the request for fee waiver. The case involves I. J. Doubs as the petitioner and Jerry D. Crawford as the respondent, filed in the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, on January 28, 2015.

Affidavit of IndigencyCourt Costs WaiverPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsFee ExemptionTexas Civil ProcedureIndigent LitigantJudicial AdministrationCivil Litigation
References
0
Case No. la-is^aoogo-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

in the Matter of the Marriage of Edsel A. Dixon and Heather D. Dixon, and in the Interest of Ashley Lynn Dixon, a Child

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency filed by EJscrd A. Dixon (Cause Number la-is^aoogo-CV) on April 9, 2015, in Tyler, Texas. The applicant requests a waiver of court fees due to financial hardship, declaring no monthly net income after taxes and no stated amount received from public benefits, despite checking boxes for various entitlements such as SSI, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. Dixon's occupation is listed as a Welder/Mechanic for Kentuckiana Real Estate. The affidavit details monthly expenses, including $305.00 for rent, $250.00 for food, and $200.00 for utilities, totaling $755.00. Assets reported include $50.00 in cash and $150.00 in bank accounts, with a total property value of $200.00.

AffidavitIndigencyCourt FeesFinancial HardshipWaiver RequestPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationNotarized Document
References
0
Case No. 13-14-00716-cv
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2015

Victor Quijano, Doing Business as Target Pest Control v. Cameron County, City of Brownsville & Brownsville Independent School District

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency filed by Victor Quijanq, requesting the court to waive court fees due to his inability to pay. He provides detailed financial information including his monthly net income of $1600 as a self-employed individual and $150 in public benefits (SSI, Medicaid). He lists his dependents as Maria Amaya, Estefania Quijano, Jesus Quijano, Juan Quijano, and Ana Quijano, and details his assets (cash, vehicle) and monthly expenses (rent, food, utilities). The form clarifies that the court may or may not approve the request and might require a hearing.

IndigencyCourt FeesAffidavitPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsExpensesDependentsTexas Law HelpCivil Procedure
References
0
Case No. 05-15-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Jay Sandon Cooper v. Judge Paul McNulty

Jay Sandon Cooper appealed an order from the 219th Judicial District Court of Collin County, which sustained a contest to his affidavit of indigence. Cooper, appearing pro se, sought to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs, claiming monthly income of $2,586 against expenses averaging $2,704. The trial court found Cooper had sufficient discretionary funds to pay appellate fees, noting he paid no mortgage, rent, or insurance, and a significant portion of his expenses were litigation-related. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas affirmed the trial court's order, concluding there was no abuse of discretion, and directed Cooper to pay for the clerk's and court reporter's records.

indigenceappellate procedureaffidavit contestcourt costspro se litigantfinancial abilitytrial court orderabuse of discretionTexas appellate law
References
4
Case No. 08-06-00234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Lawrence Wendell Few v. Catherine Jeanne Few

Lawrence Wendell Few appealed a trial court's order declaring him not indigent and requiring him to pay for the appellate record in his divorce case. Few, representing himself, argued that his indigency was proven by his incarceration and prior affidavits, and that the contest to his indigency affidavit was untimely. The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Few failed to meet his burden of proof for indigency and that his affidavit was not filed timely. Additionally, the court overruled his recusal motions and other issues for lack of preservation or briefing.

IndigencyAppeal CostsPro Se LitigantAffidavit of IndigenceTimelinessJudicial DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureRecusalProperty Division
References
12
Case No. 02-13-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Thomas A. Wilder, District Clerk v. Odell Campbell, Thomas Ray Robertson, Shawnta Renea Coleman, Scott Wiernik, Tairhonda McAfee, Marybeth Lynn Jewell, and Diana J. Najera

Justice Anne Gardner dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction against the district clerk. The injunction aimed to prevent the clerk from taxing and collecting court costs from indigent appellees who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigence. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 allows indigent parties to proceed without paying costs, and an uncontested affidavit of indigence is conclusive. The judge also argues that section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not defeat jurisdiction because the injunction does not attack the validity of the divorce judgments but rather the district clerk's ministerial duty regarding cost taxation. Furthermore, the opinion states that individual motions to retax costs would not be an adequate legal remedy due to the potential for a multiplicity of suits, and the appellees have standing to challenge a systematic policy of the district clerk.

Temporary InjunctionCourt CostsIndigenceRule 145JurisdictionMinisterial DutyFamily LawPro Se LitigantsAccess to JusticeAppellate Court
References
25
Case No. 008310002-01
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Lurea Hornbuckle v. Frank Kent Cadillac Owner William P. Churchill President CEO

Lurea Hombuckle filed an Affidavit of Indigence in Tarrant County, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis to avoid filing fees. She was requested to provide income verification, specifically documentation of government assistance like Social Security Disability or food stamps, to approve the affidavit. A judge subsequently reviewed her application for community service, found her indigent, and ordered her to complete 15 hours of community service. The case also involved a payment plan for an outstanding balance of $184.68, with a required down payment and monthly installments to be initiated in person at the Arlington Municipal Court by November 3, 2015.

IndigenceCommunity ServiceAffidavitPovertyFinancial AssistanceMunicipal CourtCourt FeesPayment PlanWarrantGovernment Assistance
References
0
Case No. 01-13-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2013

Kristofer Thomas Kastner v. Texas Workforce Commission,Rosehill Enterprises, L.L.C. Dba Houston Admiral Services

The appellant, Kristofer Thomas Kastner, filed an affidavit of indigence which was contested and sustained by the trial court. Kastner then filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for extension of time with the appellate court, arguing a deterioration of his financial condition. The appellate court denied both motions, stating it lacks authority to reconsider a trial court's order and that Kastner's motions were untimely and lacked sufficient evidence of changed circumstances. The court also clarified that rules do not allow for multiple affidavits of indigence or waiver of costs based on a later change in financial status. Consequently, the court ordered Kastner to pay the filing fee within 10 days, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal.

indigenceaffidavitappeal dismissalfiling feemotion for reconsiderationextension of timefinancial conditionappellate procedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedureunemployment benefits
References
3
Case No. 10-02-234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2002

in the Interest of M.A.H., a Child

Destiny Dawn Merritt's parental rights to her daughter, M.A.H., were terminated by a jury verdict and a decree signed on May 29, 2002. Merritt's subsequent motion for new trial and indigence affidavit were filed nine days late, and her formal notice of appeal was filed on August 9, 2002, which was twenty-three days after the court sustained the contest to her indigence affidavit and well past the twenty-day deadline for accelerated appeals in parental termination cases. While an instrument filed in a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction can be considered, and an implied motion for extension can be granted, Merritt must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing. The Tenth Court of Appeals issued a notice stating that the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless Merritt files a response with a reasonable explanation within ten days, failing which the appeal will be dismissed.

Parental Rights TerminationAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealNotice of AppealAccelerated AppealJurisdictionMotion for New TrialIndigence AffidavitBona Fide Attempt RuleExtension of Time
References
17
Case No. E2004-01216-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2005

State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. RDV

This case concerns an appeal from the Juvenile Court for Anderson County regarding the termination of a father's (RDV) parental rights. The Trial Court refused to appoint counsel for RDV despite his indigence claim, which the Court of Appeals found to be an improper denial of his right to counsel. The appellate court determined that the Trial Court failed to conduct a 'full and complete hearing' on the issue of indigency as required by Tennessee law, by discounting RDV's affidavit and testimony from his family. Consequently, the Judgment terminating parental rights was vacated, and the case remanded for a proper indigency hearing and a new trial.

parental rights terminationright to counselindigency hearingdue processjuvenile court appealremand for new hearingTennessee lawaffidavit of indigencyfinancial abilitycourt procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 530 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