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

Marshall v. Burger King Corp.

The defendant, Burger King Corp., applied for an amendment to the findings of fact from a December 10, 1980 Memorandum Decision and Order. The court granted the Rule 52(b) motion to supplement previous findings, particularly regarding defendant's record-keeping and overtime-pay obligations for Assistant Managers in the New York area. The judgment's relief is extended beyond the initial two districts or five restaurants due to evidence of systemic issues emanating from the regional level. The court also addressed the Secretary's claim regarding Assistant Managers earning above the short-form test exemption. Prejudgment interest was awarded at the adjusted prime rate, rejecting the defendant's good faith argument due to willful violations. The defendant's application for a stay of judgment pending appeal was granted, except for record-keeping obligations, conditional on filing bonds and prosecuting the appeal.

Overtime PayFair Labor Standards ActRule 52(b) MotionPrejudgment InterestWillful ViolationsRecord-KeepingEquitable PowersFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAssistant ManagersStay of Judgment
References
15
Case No. E2018-01319-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Dr. Victor W. McLaughlin, M.D. v. Elizabeth King McLaughlin a/k/a Rev. Elizabeth King

Dr. Victor W. McLaughlin sued Elizabeth King McLaughlin for $20,451, alleging she received loans from him that she failed to repay. Ms. King, his former daughter-in-law, denied the debt, claiming the money transfers were gifts, but did not raise this as an affirmative defense in her initial responsive pleading. The trial court ruled in favor of Dr. McLaughlin, finding Ms. King had waived her affirmative defense under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 8.03. Ms. King appealed, arguing she should have been allowed to orally deny the account under oath per Tennessee Code Annotated § 24-5-107. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Ms. King's failure to plead the affirmative defense of gifts in her answer constituted a waiver.

Account StatedAffirmative DefenseWaiverLoan vs. GiftAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureTennessee LawSworn Account StatuteMoney TransfersDebt Recovery
References
40
Case No. E2020-01038-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2021

Jennifer King v. Delfasco, LLC

The case involves Jennifer King, a former employee of Delfasco, LLC, who sued her employer for wrongful termination under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA) and common law retaliatory discharge. King was fired for refusing to share her government-issued password to the Department of Defense (DOD) Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) system with her employer, Jack Goldenberg. She believed this act was unlawful based on advice from a DOD representative and the WAWF User Agreement. The Trial Court found in favor of King, awarding her damages but denying emotional distress and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that King had a reasonable belief that sharing her password was unlawful and that her refusal was the sole basis for her termination. The Court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to King and remanded for the calculation of appellate attorney's fees.

Retaliatory DischargeTennessee Public Protection ActUnlawful TerminationPassword Protection PolicyDepartment of DefenseWAWF SystemUser Agreement ViolationEmployment LawAppellate ReviewAttorney's Fees Awarded
References
40
Case No. 01-06-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2008

John C. Scott v. William E. King

John C. Scott (Appellant) appealed a jury verdict finding him liable to William E. King (Appellee) for defamation, violation of the Texas Election Code, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding King $605,750. King, then mayor of Kemah, Texas, sued Scott, a Galveston County Water Control and Improvement District board member, for disseminating anonymous flyers critical of King during and after his re-election campaign. Scott raised nine issues on appeal, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence for damages, King's ability to recover for defamation as a public official, and various charge errors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages, and ruling that Scott failed to preserve other complaints for review or that King had standing under the Election Code.

DefamationTexas Election CodeEmotional DistressPublic OfficialsFree SpeechPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
23
Case No. M2004-02911-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2006

CNA (Continental Casualty) v. William King

William King, a roofing contractor, obtained workers' compensation insurance but declared no employees. An audit by CNA (Continental Casualty) revealed King utilized uninsured subcontractors, leading to an additional premium assessment of over $14,700. King contested the charge, asserting his workers were independent contractors and not subject to workers' compensation coverage. The trial court found the insurance policy valid and enforceable, ruling in favor of CNA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that CNA was justified in assessing the premium due to its potential liability under Tennessee's Workers Compensation Law for uninsured workers, irrespective of their independent contractor status, as King failed to provide proof of alternative coverage or proper waiver forms. The court emphasized that the insurance contract's terms and the underlying workers' compensation statutes made King liable for the premium based on the actual risk undertaken by CNA.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePremium DisputeIndependent Contractor StatusStatutory Employer LiabilityInsurance Contract InterpretationConstruction Industry RegulationsSubcontractor Insurance RequirementsAudit FindingsTennessee Appellate CourtContract Enforceability
References
26
Case No. 03-03-00173-CV, GN100452
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Michael King v. City of Austin, Texas

Michael King brings an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's denial of his motion for class certification against the City of Austin. King, representing approximately 900 police officers, sought to recover base pay and lost benefits. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying certification, focusing on the adequacy of representation and the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found conflicting evidence regarding King's ability to adequately represent the class due to intra-class antagonism and King's limited active role in the litigation. Furthermore, individual issues related to the discovery rule predominated, and a class action was not deemed superior given previous successful individual suits by Austin police officers for similar claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealAbuse of DiscretionAdequacy of RepresentationPredominanceSuperiorityTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42Conflict of InterestStatute of Limitations
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michael King v. TFE, Inc.

Michael King appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to TFE, Inc., regarding his claims for breach of an alleged employment contract. King was terminated after a traffic accident, with TFE citing a "major chargeable" accident provision in its employee manual. King argued that the manual constituted a binding employment contract, especially concerning disciplinary and appeal procedures. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the employee handbook did not create an employment contract because it contained language reserving TFE's right to modify rules and stated that the company would only "consider" recommendations from the driver committee, thereby lacking specific guarantees or binding commitments required to alter an at-will employment status.

Employment contractSummary judgmentEmployee handbookAt-will employmentWrongful terminationDisciplinary proceduresCompany policyWorkplace accidentWorkers' compensation benefitsContractual intent
References
9
Case No. E2003-02124-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2004

Jon E. Shell v. D. Scott King

Jon and Rebecca Shell, as plaintiffs, sued D. Scott King for the dissolution of their limited liability company (The Big Red Barn, LLC) and breach of fiduciary duties. A Special Master found King negligent and in breach, recommending a judgment that included some attorney and expert witness fees. The Trial Court confirmed this report. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed King's liability for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. However, the appellate court modified the judgment to hold King responsible for all expert witness fees, a larger portion of attorney fees related to expert assistance, and all court costs, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine appellate attorney fees.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)Breach of Fiduciary DutyNegligenceDissolution of CompanySpecial Master ReportAttorney FeesExpert Witness FeesCosts on AppealRespondeat SuperiorDelegation of Duties
References
6
Case No. 2015-03-0886
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

King, Joshua v. Compass Heating and Air, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal concerns an HVAC installer, Joshua T. King, who claimed a hernia injury sustained while installing an air conditioning unit for Compass Heating and Air. Despite the employer's denial of a compensable injury, the trial court initially awarded King medical and temporary partial disability benefits. Compass Heating and Air appealed solely the award of temporary partial disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence supported the likelihood of King's success at trial. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings to resolve outstanding issues, including the specific dates of King's subsequent employment at a restaurant.

Hernia injuryHVAC workerWorkers' compensationTemporary partial disabilityMedical benefitsInterlocutory appealAppellate reviewEmployer liabilityCompensable injuryLifting restrictions
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 605 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