Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Concurrently, the motion for poor person relief was dismissed as academic.
A motion for leave to appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the order being appealed does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding as defined by the Constitution. Additionally, a motion for poor person relief was dismissed as it has become academic due to the dismissal of the primary motion.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
This case involves an accelerated, interlocutory appeal by Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown challenging a trial court's denial of her plea in abatement. Appellees, a class of medically vulnerable persons detained in the Dallas County Jail, sued Sheriff Brown for injunctive relief regarding conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging violations of the Texas Constitution, public health nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. The Sheriff claimed governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals reviewed the claims, specifically addressing the viability of constitutional and ultra vires claims, and the applicability of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The court concluded that appellees failed to plead viable constitutional claims, that the Sheriff's actions were not ultra vires, and that the TTCA does not waive immunity for injunctive relief. The trial court's order was reversed, and the appellees' claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
This document outlines the disposition of a multi-part motion. The request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order dated October 18, 1979, was denied. Separately, the motion's attempt to appeal from Appellate Division orders dated January 8, 1980, and February 28, 1980, was dismissed, as these orders were deemed not to constitute a final determination of the proceeding under the Constitution. Furthermore, the accompanying request to prosecute the appeal as a poor person was dismissed as academic.
This case concerns a property dispute between next-door neighbors, Mary Catherine Person and Martha Pyron, over a strip of land and the placement of a fence. Person claimed adverse possession of the land and sought an injunction to remove Pyron's fence. Pyron counterclaimed for trespass, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the property boundary. The dispute originated from the successive erection of three fences, with previous owners of Pyron's lot allowing Person's use of the disputed strip. The district court granted Pyron's motion for summary judgment, denied Person's, and established the property line based on a 2018 survey, ordering Person to remove encroachments. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Person failed to prove continuous hostile adverse possession for the statutory ten-year period, as her initial use was permissive and did not become adverse until 2016 or 2017.
The claimant-appellant filed a motion seeking permission to prosecute an appeal as a poor person and requesting assignment of counsel. The court partially granted the motion, allowing the appeal to proceed based on the board’s original file and seven copies of a brief and appendix from the reconsideration application. All other aspects of the motion were denied. The court specified that its review on appeal would be limited to assessing whether the board’s denial of reconsideration was arbitrary or capricious. Justices Mahoney, Sweeney, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred in this decision.
Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.
The case involves Jill Lynn Meadows, former spouse of Debtor Anthony Drew Meadows, filing a complaint to determine the dischargeability of certain debts and for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Debtor received $60,000 from a personal injury lawsuit related to his employment under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. A divorce decree from the 360th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, stipulated that one-fourth of these proceeds would go to Mrs. Meadows for their daughter Maegan's use, and another fourth would be held in trust for Maegan. The Debtor filed for bankruptcy, claiming the remaining proceeds were exempt under 33 U.S.C. § 916. Mrs. Meadows argued the funds were for child support, thus nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5), and sought relief from stay. The Court concluded that the state court judgment clearly intended the funds for child support, which aligns with public policy and relevant bankruptcy code sections that prevent the discharge of child support obligations. Therefore, the Court ruled that one-half of the net proceeds from the personal injury suit and $1,250.00 in attorney fees constituted nondischargeable child support.
The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.