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

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. M2012-01918-COA-10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In Re: Conservatorship of John Daniel Tate

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal of right from the denial of a motion for recusal in a conservatorship proceeding for John Daniel Tate. Mr. Tate argued the trial judge exhibited personal bias due to contentious litigation, adverse rulings, his public criticism via a blog, and a federal lawsuit he filed against the judge. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, reviewing de novo under Rule 10B, found no reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that adverse rulings and a litigant's actions to force recusal are generally insufficient grounds for disqualification. Additionally, the court found no procedural errors regarding the promptness or written explanation of the denial, and dismissed other jurisdictional claims as outside the scope of a Rule 10B appeal.

Recusal MotionConservatorshipInterlocutory AppealJudicial BiasAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme Court Rule 10BMotion DenialTrial Judge DisqualificationCourt of AppealsAdverse Rulings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dyer v. Cotton

Eddie Dyer sued Ronald Cotton in a trespass to try title suit, claiming adverse possession of a 6/7th interest in farmland in Grimes County, Texas, in addition to a 1/7th interest he acquired by conveyance. A jury found that Dyer had not adversely possessed the property, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Dyer. On appeal, Dyer contended that insufficient evidence supported the jury's finding and that the trial court erred in jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its jury instructions or evidentiary rulings. The court specifically addressed Dyer's claim of adverse possession against co-tenants, requiring proof of ouster or repudiation, and found the evidence factually and legally sufficient to support the jury's decision.

Adverse PossessionCo-TenancyTrespass to Try TitleOusterRepudiationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyParol Evidence Rule
References
59
Case No. W2017-02255-COA-T10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Ricky L. Boren v. Hill Boren, PC

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B concerning the denial of a motion for recusal. The underlying dispute involves an agreement for future transfer of controlling interest in a law firm, Hill Boren, PC, between plaintiffs Ricky L. Boren and Jeffrey P. Boyd, and defendants T. Robert Hill and Hill Boren, PC. Chancellor James F. Butler recused himself due to familiarity with the parties, and Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies was assigned. The defendants (Petitioners) sought Judge Davies's recusal, alleging inappropriate ex parte communication and judicial bias based on adverse rulings. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition de novo and found no factual basis for the ex parte communication claim, noting the Petitioners' delayed filing. It also determined that Judge Davies applied the correct legal standard and that his adverse rulings, even if numerous, did not demonstrate the pervasive bias required for recusal from an extrajudicial source. The trial court's decision to deny the motion for recusal was affirmed.

Judicial RecusalInterlocutory AppealJudicial ImpartialityEx Parte CommunicationJudicial BiasAbuse of DiscretionStandard of Review De NovoCourt of Appeals TennesseeChancery CourtMotion to Disqualify
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Wilbert L. Davis appealed an adverse summary judgment in his suit against Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Davis suffered a work injury in 1984, and Aetna, the insurance carrier, denied his claim in 1986. Although the Industrial Accident Board later awarded Davis benefits, he filed his breach of good faith suit in March 1990. The trial court granted summary judgment for Aetna, finding Davis's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, which began when Aetna initially denied the claim in January 1986. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the discovery rule did not apply to outright denials of claims and that subsequent acts of bad faith did not create a new or continuing tort.

Summary judgmentStatute of limitationsBreach of good faith and fair dealingWorkers' compensationAccrual of cause of actionDenial of coverageDiscovery ruleContinuing tortPre-existing conditionAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Balint v. NYS Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction lieutenant, sustained work-related injuries but continued to perform his regular duties for over a year before retiring and applying for postretirement benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that despite a permanent partial disability, he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, denying him benefits. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that claimant's retirement was voluntary, as he worked without restriction, was not medically advised to retire, and found new full-time employment shortly thereafter. The court also upheld the denial of reduced earnings benefits, as the claimant failed to demonstrate his disability adversely affected his earning capacity or ability to find comparable employment.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketPermanent partial disabilityPostretirement benefitsReduced earnings benefitsSubstantial evidenceCorrection lieutenantMedical opinionEarning capacityEmployment search
References
6
Case No. M2012-01878-COA-10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In Re: Conservatorship of Alfonso B. Patton

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the Probate Court for Davidson County concerning the denial of a motion for recusal. Patricia Richmond, the ward's daughter, alleged that the trial judge was biased due to adverse rulings and an appearance of impropriety arising from opposing counsel's prior role as a law clerk for the judge. The Tennessee Court of Appeals, reviewing the matter de novo, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that adverse judicial rulings alone do not demonstrate bias and that a former professional association between a judge and an attorney is insufficient to mandate recusal without additional evidence.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasAppellate ReviewInterlocutory AppealConservatorship LawTennessee Court of AppealsDue ProcessImpartialityFormer Law ClerkStandard of Review De Novo
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 11,161 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