Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2000-00547-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2001

Mary Louise Goodman Case v. Billy Ray Case

This is a divorce case involving Mary Louise Goodman Case (Wife) and Billy Ray Case (Husband) after 25 years of marriage. The trial court granted a divorce to the Wife on grounds of the Husband's inappropriate marital conduct, divided marital property, but failed to determine the value of the Wife's pension plan, and did not award spousal support to the Husband. The Husband appealed, arguing against the divorce, the property division, and the lack of alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce and the decision not to award alimony but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to classify, value, and equitably divide the Wife's pension plan as marital property.

DivorceMarital PropertyPension DivisionSpousal SupportAlimonyInappropriate Marital ConductDisability BenefitsEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute

References

Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver

References

Case No. 11-14-00137-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 10, 2014

in Re Lewis Casing Crews, Inc.

Lewis Casing Crews, Inc. (Relator) filed a mandamus proceeding after the trial court denied its motion to designate Diamond D Slickline Service Company, Inc. as a responsible third party in a personal injury case brought by David G. Tinnie (Real Party in Interest). Tinnie, an employee of Diamond D, was injured on a drilling rig and sued Lewis Casing and others for negligence and gross negligence. Lewis Casing sought to designate Diamond D, alleging its negligence contributed to Tinnie's harm. The trial court denied the motion, stating it was 'premature.' The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion because Lewis Casing's pleadings provided fair notice of Diamond D's alleged responsibility, and 'pre-maturity' is not a valid ground for denial. The court also determined that Lewis Casing lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, as denying the designation would skew proceedings, affect the outcome, and potentially lead to a waste of judicial resources and an inability to seek contribution from the worker's compensation-subscribing employer. Therefore, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its denial and grant the motion for designation.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodePersonal Injury LawProportionate ResponsibilityClear Abuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealFair Notice PleadingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Procedure

References

Case No. E2021-00378-SC-R11-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 14, 2024

Terry Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

Plaintiff Terry Case defaulted on his mortgage, leading to a foreclosure sale by Wilmington Trust, N.A. Case sued for 'wrongful foreclosure,' alleging improper notice of a postponed sale. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a notice violation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to determine if Tennessee recognizes a common law cause of action for 'wrongful foreclosure' and if the deed of trust required written notice of postponement. The Supreme Court held that Case has constitutional standing but ruled that no common law cause of action for 'wrongful foreclosure' exists in Tennessee. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case.

ForeclosureMortgage DefaultStanding DoctrineProperty RightsCommon Law Cause of ActionNotice RequirementsDeed of TrustAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentContract Law

References

Case No. Case No. 3:06cv0003; Case No. 3:06cv0004

Regular Panel Decision

B & B Enterprises of Wilson County, LLC v. City of Lebanon

This consolidated action involves two cases, the Lead Case and the Member Case, both initially filed in state court and subsequently removed to a federal district court in Tennessee. In the Member Case, the federal court determined that the removal was premature because defendants removed the case after plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add federal claims but before the state court had ruled on the motion, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Member Case was remanded to state court. For the Lead Case, plaintiffs had included federal civil rights claims in their initial complaint, justifying its removal to federal court. However, plaintiffs later filed an unopposed motion to non-suit these federal claims, which the court granted, and it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, specifically regarding inverse condemnation under Tennessee law, remanding the Lead Case to state court as well. The court emphasized principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and noted the defendants' apparent attempts at forum manipulation.

Federal Question JurisdictionRemoval to Federal CourtSupplemental JurisdictionRemand to State CourtSubject-Matter JurisdictionMotion to Amend ComplaintNon-Suit Federal ClaimsInverse CondemnationTennessee LawPremature Removal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.

A group of migrant farm workers filed a civil action against Case Farms of Ohio, claiming violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state laws. The plaintiffs, recruited from Texas to work in Ohio, alleged misrepresentations regarding employment terms, transportation, and housing conditions. The court found Case Farms liable for numerous AWPA violations, including using an unregistered farm labor contractor, failing to provide written disclosures, providing false information, violating working arrangement terms, failing to comply with housing health and safety codes, and failing to ensure vehicle insurance and inspection for the 1996 plaintiffs. Some 1997 plaintiffs also proved violations related to written disclosures and housing occupancy terms. The court awarded statutory and actual damages to different groups of plaintiffs for these violations, while rejecting most FLSA and state law claims due to insufficient evidence or lack of agency.

Migrant workers' rightsAgricultural employmentWorker Protection ActFair Labor Standards ActWage and hour violationsUnregistered labor contractorSubstandard housingUnsafe transportationFalse promisesJoint employer doctrine

References

Case No. 03-17-00478-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation

References

Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

This is a placeholder summary. No legal text was provided for analysis, hence specific case details, parties involved, and the judicial outcome cannot be accurately extracted. The purpose of this output is to demonstrate the JSON structure when actual data is unavailable. Therefore, all fields contain placeholder values.

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,997 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2000-00547-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2001

Mary Louise Goodman Case v. Billy Ray Case

DivorceMarital PropertyPension DivisionSpousal SupportAlimonyInappropriate Marital ConductDisability BenefitsEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute

References

Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver

References

Case No. 11-14-00137-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 10, 2014

in Re Lewis Casing Crews, Inc.

References

Case No. E2021-00378-SC-R11-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 14, 2024

Terry Case v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

ForeclosureMortgage DefaultStanding DoctrineProperty RightsCommon Law Cause of ActionNotice RequirementsDeed of TrustAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentContract Law

References

Case No. Case No. 3:06cv0003; Case No. 3:06cv0004

Regular Panel Decision

B & B Enterprises of Wilson County, LLC v. City of Lebanon

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.

References

Case No. 03-17-00478-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation

References

Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,997 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.