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. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pierre

Relator Delis B. Pierre appealed a contempt order for failing to pay child support to Appellee Bethany L. Vicars, arguing an inability to pay due to a work-related injury and unauthorized conditions of community supervision. Pierre, a welder, suffered injuries in 1997, underwent two surgeries, and was incarcerated, affecting his income and ability to pay. The appellate court upheld the trial court's finding on his ability to pay, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the court found that a condition requiring drug and alcohol testing without supporting evidence or correlation to child support was not authorized by the Family Code. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted, and the contempt order was reformed to remove that specific condition, while the rest of the judgment was affirmed.

Child SupportContemptHabeas CorpusInability to PayCommunity SupervisionAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawTexasWelders InjuryArrearages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

This opinion addresses the financial ability of Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 (the 'Union') to satisfy a back pay award stemming from previous contempt findings for violations of court orders and an affirmative action plan related to nonwhite membership goals. The court reaffirms the compensatory rationale for the back pay award, making the Union's ability to pay relevant for how it will be paid, not whether it can afford it. Based on expert testimony, the court determines the Union can immediately contribute $1 million from its cash reserves and an additional $1.6 million within six months by selling or mortgaging its real estate holdings. Furthermore, the Union is ordered to pay $900,000 annually, starting December 31, 2001, by restoring membership dues and assessments to their pre-reduction levels. All funds are to be deposited into an interest-bearing escrow account to ensure compliance and facilitate distribution to entitled nonwhite journeypersons.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionContempt of CourtBack Pay AwardUnion FinancesRemedial SanctionsRacial DiscriminationCivil ProcedureEscrow FundLitigation History
References
12
Case No. M2022-01299-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2023

Andrew Francis Tittle v. Deidre Lyn Deyoung Tittle

This is a divorce action in which the trial court awarded the wife a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, divided the marital estate and awarded the wife, inter alia, child support as well as transitional alimony of $2,000 per month for four years, followed by $1,500 per month for two years, then $1,000 per month for two years, and $500 per month for two years. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido of $50,000 as necessary spousal support and an additional $75,000 to defray the cost of most of her attorney’s fees. The husband appeals. We have determined that the record contains an inconsistency concerning the amount of the work-related childcare expenses the husband is required to pay, and it appears that the trial court failed to consider the husband’s obligation to pay work-related childcare costs in setting transitional alimony at $2,000 per month during the first four years, which additional expense appears to impair the husband’s ability to pay that amount. Accordingly, we vacate the award of child support and that portion of the transitional alimony award and remand these issues for reconsideration, taking into account, inter alia, the allocation of childcare expenses, the wife’s need, and the husband’s ability to pay. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. Both parties seek to recover the attorney’s fees and costs each incurred in this appeal. Exercising our discretion, we deny both requests.

DivorceAlimonyChild SupportMarital MisconductCredibility AssessmentFinancial DuplicityAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChildcare ExpensesSpousal Support
References
26
Case No. M2014-01159-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Gary Sulo Alto

Gary Sulo Alto, referred to as "the Defendant," pleaded guilty to theft of property valued between $10,000 and $60,000. The trial court denied alternative sentencing and initially ordered $60,000 in restitution. On appeal, the Defendant challenged both the denial of alternative sentencing and the restitution amount, arguing the trial court failed to consider his future ability to pay. The appellate court affirmed the denial of alternative sentencing but modified the restitution amount from $60,000 to $27,000, citing the trial court's failure to make findings on the Defendant's financial ability to pay and relying on an IRS settlement amount.

TheftSentencingRestitutionAlternative SentencingCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewPlea AgreementConspiracyAbuse of DiscretionFinancial Ability to Pay
References
25
Case No. W2016-00655-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2017

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Deedra Climer Bass v. Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Perez

Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Perez (Father) appealed a contempt order for failing to pay child support, arguing that his Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act benefits were exempt from claims of creditors and thus immune from child support obligations. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the Juvenile Court's decision, ruling that while the federal act exempts benefits from levy and attachment, it does not prevent them from being considered as income for child support calculation under Tennessee guidelines. The court found Father had the present ability to pay and willfully refused, holding that federal law does not preempt Tennessee's ability to assess such benefits for child support purposes.

Workers' CompensationChild SupportContemptFederal PreemptionLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActDisability BenefitsIncome AssignmentJuvenile CourtAppellate ReviewAbility to Pay
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rizvi v. Department of Homeland Security

Advanced Medical Automation Systems, Inc. (AMAS), along with Syed Rizvi and his family, sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the denial of AMAS's I-140 visa petition and the family's I-485 applications. The plaintiffs challenged USCIS's findings regarding AMAS's ability to pay the proffered wage and Rizvi's qualifications and experience. The court had previously dismissed several related claims, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment on AMAS's challenge to the I-140 denial. Ultimately, the court granted USCIS's motion and denied AMAS's, affirming the agency's decision. This decision was based on AMAS's failure to demonstrate a continuing ability to pay the proffered wage from the priority date, as well as issues with Rizvi's educational equivalency and work experience.

Immigration LawVisa Petition DenialUSCIS AdjudicationAbility to Pay RequirementProffered WageAdministrative Procedure ActSummary JudgmentEmployment-Based VisaLabor CertificationPriority Date Rule
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abdi v. Nielsen

This case involved petitioners Hanad Abdi and Johan Barrios Ramos, asylum-seekers detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, who sought clarification of a prior court order mandating bond hearings. The central issue was whether Immigration Judges (IJs) must consider a detainee's financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release when setting bond. The court first affirmed its jurisdiction despite a pending interlocutory appeal, emphasizing its power to clarify injunctions to ensure compliance. It then ruled that its November 17, 2017, Decision implicitly required IJs to consider ability to pay and alternatives to detention, citing constitutional due process concerns and the precedent set by Lora v. Shanahan and Hernandez v. Sessions. The court also determined that administrative exhaustion was not required or was excused due to futility, as the BIA had previously rejected the relevance of ability-to-pay. Ultimately, the motion was granted, mandating IJs to incorporate these factors into bond determinations.

Immigration LawAsylum SeekersDetentionBond HearingsDue ProcessPreliminary InjunctionClass ActionJudicial ReviewAdministrative ExhaustionFutility Exception
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ex Parte Ramon

Roberto A. Ramon, the relator, sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging a contempt order for failing to pay child support to his ex-wife, Jo Ann Cantu. The trial court had ordered him confined for six months and until he paid $22,338.00 in arrearages. Ramon contended his inability to pay rendered the indefinite confinement void. The appellate court distinguished between criminal (punitive) and civil (coercive) contempt. It affirmed the six-month punitive confinement, finding sufficient evidence of Ramon's past ability to pay child support. However, the court found the civil contempt provision unenforceable, concluding Ramon demonstrated a present inability to pay the arrearage. Consequently, Ramon was remanded to serve only the balance of the six-month criminal contempt sentence.

Habeas CorpusChild SupportContempt of CourtInability to PayCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptDivorce DecreeArrearageTexas Family CodeConfinement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,976 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