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. 06-10-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2011

Kerri Sue Hass Culver v. Billy Ray Culver

The case involves an appeal by Kerri Sue Hass Culver (Appellant) against a protective order obtained by her husband, Billy Ray Culver (Appellee). Billy Ray sought the protective order alleging family violence and the likelihood of future family violence. The trial court granted the protective order, and Kerri appealed, raising nine points of error including insufficient evidence, refusal of discovery and continuance motions, ineffective assistance of counsel, application of the Brady rule, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of recusal motions, and failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding sufficient evidence of family violence and rejecting all of Kerri's points of error. The court found that Kerri's actions, such as attempting to run Billy off the road with her car and throwing a telephone at him, constituted family violence. The court also clarified that the modified judgments issued by the trial court were within its plenary power and did not require additional hearings under Chapter 87 of the Texas Family Code.

Protective OrderFamily ViolenceDomestic AbuseAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial DiscretionMotion for ContinuanceRecusalDue ProcessCivil Injunction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Co. v. Texas Employment Commission

The Texas Company, appellant, sought judicial review in Jefferson County of a Texas Employment Commission decision awarding unemployment compensation benefits to forty-four individual appellees, who were non-striking employees. The core issue was whether the appellees, who refused to cross picket lines during a strike by the Oil Workers Union due to a well-founded fear of physical violence, were "participating in" a labor dispute and thus disqualified from benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, Article 5221b-3(d). The district court upheld the Commission's decision, applying the substantial evidence rule. The appellate court affirmed this, ruling that refusal to cross a picket line due to well-founded fear of violence does not constitute participation in a labor dispute, and found ample evidence to support the appellees' fears, including past strike violence and threats during the current strike. The court also admitted evidence of violence from a prior strike involving the same union in the same locality, finding it relevant to the foundation of the claimants' fears. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputePicket LineFear of ViolenceSubstantial Evidence RuleAdministrative ReviewStatutory InterpretationNon-Striking EmployeesTexas Employment CommissionWork Stoppage
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Schriro

Petitioner Castillo, a correction officer and domestic violence victim, challenged her employment termination by the New York City Department of Correction via an Article 78 proceeding. The court found that the respondents acted in bad faith and discriminated against her based on a temporary disability and her status as a domestic violence victim, violating the New York City Human Rights Law. Respondents failed to provide reasonable accommodations or follow internal policies for domestic violence victims. The petition was granted, her termination annulled, and she was ordered reinstated with back pay and benefits, with the case remanded for a lesser penalty.

Domestic ViolenceEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationProbationary EmployeeArticle 78 ProceedingReasonable AccommodationBad FaithNew York City Human Rights LawAWOLTermination
References
30
Case No. 06-11-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Culver v. Culver

Billy Ray Culver obtained a protective order against his wife, Kerri Sue Hass Culver, based on allegations of family violence, including threats with a car and assault with a phone, and the likelihood of future violence. Kerri appealed, asserting nine points of error, including insufficient evidence, denial of discovery and continuance, ineffective assistance of counsel, inapplicability of the Brady rule, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper handling of recusal motions and findings of fact. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding sufficient evidence of family violence and no reversible error in the trial court's procedural rulings.

Protective OrderFamily ViolenceAppealAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceDiscoveryContinuanceIneffective Assistance of CounselBrady RuleProsecutorial Misconduct
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2018

Matter of Bobbi B. (Bobby B.)

This case concerns an appeal by Bobby B., the father, against an order from the Family Court, Bronx County. The Family Court found the father neglected his child, Bobbi B., by engaging in domestic violence in her presence. The court's finding was based on the testimony of a shelter worker who witnessed the father assaulting the mother while she held their one-month-old child. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that there was no basis to overturn the credibility determinations. The court reiterated that even a single instance of domestic violence can be sufficient for a finding of neglect and properly discredited the father's denial of a domestic violence history due to a prior assault conviction and an existing order of protection.

Child neglectDomestic violenceFamily CourtAppellate DivisionCredibility determinationOrder of protectionChild endangermentThird-degree assaultInfant protectionParental neglect
References
4
Case No. 03-11-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2012

Brian Hunt v. State of Texas for the Protection of K. C.

Brian Hunt appealed a family-violence protective order issued against him, challenging the trial court's failure to reschedule a hearing, denial of his right to confront his accuser, finding of a familial relationship with K. C., and the basis of the protective order on alleged false statements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that Hunt waived his procedural rights by not attending the hearing. The court further found that K. C.'s uncontroverted testimony provided legally sufficient evidence to establish dating violence, which constitutes family violence under Texas law, thus supporting the protective order. Hunt's claims of false allegations lacked evidentiary support in the record and were therefore overruled.

Family ViolenceProtective OrderDue ProcessRight to ConfrontationDating ViolenceSufficiency of EvidenceDefault JudgmentAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyPro Se Litigation
References
9
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. Docket No. V-20843-4/02
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Hector G. v. Josefina P.

This case addresses a child custody dispute between a mother and father involving the application of New York's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The mother brought her twin sons from the Dominican Republic to the United States after the father obtained a default custody order there. Allegations of extensive domestic violence against the mother and children by the father were subsequently raised in New York's Integrated Domestic Violence Court. The New York court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction, contacted the Dominican court, which then declined to retain jurisdiction. Based on the significant connections of the mother and children to New York, the availability of substantial evidence, and domestic violence concerns, the court assumed full modification jurisdiction over the Dominican custody order, concluding that New York is the more convenient forum.

UCCJEAInternational Custody DisputeDomestic Violence AllegationsTemporary Emergency JurisdictionModification JurisdictionInconvenient Forum AnalysisDominican Republic Custody OrderHome State JurisdictionParental KidnappingChild Relocation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholson v. Scoppetta

This federal class action addresses three certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding New York's child protective proceedings. Plaintiffs, mothers who experienced domestic violence, challenged the New York City Administration for Children's Services' policy of removing children deemed neglected due to exposure to such violence. The Court ruled that merely witnessing domestic abuse does not presumptively establish neglect, requiring specific proof of harm and a parent's failure to exercise minimum care. It also clarified that while emotional injury from witnessing violence can warrant child removal, such decisions must be based on a fact-intensive inquiry, balancing the risks of remaining at home against the trauma of removal, and considering efforts to prevent removal. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that no blanket presumption for removal exists; particularized evidence tailored to the child's best interests is always necessary.

Child Protective ProceedingsDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectChild RemovalDue ProcessFourth AmendmentFamily Court ActMinimum Degree of CareImminent DangerBest Interests of the Child
References
26
Case No. 2026 NY Slip Op 00144; 2022-09453; Ind. No. 12564/08
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

People v. Nymeen C.

Nymeen C. appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Kings County that denied her motion for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed whether such an order, dismissed 'without prejudice,' is appealable, concluding that it is appealable as a denial of resentencing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the original order, finding that Nymeen C. failed to provide corroborating evidence of ongoing domestic violence at the time of the offense in 2008, despite presenting evidence of past abuse. The court clarified the appealability of such orders, distinguishing its stance from the Third Department's precedent.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActDVSJAresentencingappealabilityCPL 440.47Penal Law 60.12appellate reviewcorroborating evidencemanslaughterKings County
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 172 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