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

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle

This case involves a dispute between the Plaintiffs, comprising members and estates of the rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Defendants Cleopatra Records, Cleopatra Films, and Artimus Pyle. Plaintiffs sought to enforce a 1988 Consent Order that restricted the use of the band's name, likenesses of deceased members Ronnie Van Zant and Steven Gaines, and their biographical material. Defendants produced a film about the 1977 Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash, with Pyle's active involvement, which Plaintiffs argued violated the Consent Order. The court determined that Pyle was bound by the Consent Order and that Cleopatra acted in concert with him, thus violating its terms. As a result, the court granted a permanent injunction against Cleopatra, awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs, and dismissed Cleopatra's counter-motions.

Permanent InjunctionConsent Order EnforcementFilm Production DisputeSpoliation of EvidenceAdverse InferenceAttorneys' FeesFirst Amendment RightsContract LawEntertainment IndustryMusic Band Rights
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. ADJ9421326, ADJ9358335
Regular
May 06, 2016

IVY CHEN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

This case involves a dispute over whether the parties mutually consented to cancel their agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for applicant Ivy Chen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the initial order non-final. The WCAB then granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board determined that while no explicit written cancellation existed, the parties' actions in jointly pursuing a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) constituted mutual consent to abandon the AME agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2(f)mutual written consentQualified Medical Examinerinterim orderfinal ordersignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action on February 6, 1992, against Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., Oxford Consolidated Corporation, and several individuals for alleged fraudulent offer and sale of unregistered debt securities. The court issued an order for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and accountings. Defendants consented to permanent injunctions but failed to provide complete accountings. The Commission moved to hold defendants in civil contempt. The court found defendants in contempt, ruling that Fifth Amendment privilege was waived by individuals who consented to the judgments and does not apply to corporate entities or their officers acting in a representative capacity. Sanctions are deferred for 45 days, allowing defendants to comply with the order.

Securities fraudCivil contemptFifth Amendment privilegeCorporate recordsAsset freezeAccountingInjunctionCorporate officersWaiver of privilegeFederal securities laws
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Commissioner of Social Services of Suffolk County

This case involves an appeal by a natural mother from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order approving the surrender of her child, Matthew, for adoption. The mother had alleged that her consent was procured by undue influence and threats from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services and her family. Following a hearing, the Family Court determined that the surrender was voluntarily and knowingly executed. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no evidence of fraud, duress, or coercion that would vitiate the mother's consent. The court emphasized that emotional stress during the decision-making process for adoption does not automatically invalidate consent, and a balancing of interests favored upholding the surrender.

AdoptionParental RightsConsentUndue InfluenceCoercionFamily LawChild CustodyAppellate ReviewVoluntary SurrenderSocial Services
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernthon v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Petitioner was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident in September 1995 and received workers’ compensation benefits for a knee injury. He settled a third-party action for $34,500 in February 1998 without the consent of his employer's workers' compensation carrier, Utica Mutual Insurance Company. Utica Mutual learned of the settlement in May 1998 but never provided consent. One year after the settlement, petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for the settlement, which the Supreme Court denied, citing a lack of reasonable excuse for the delay. The court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and reiterating that the responsibility for obtaining carrier consent or seeking a compromise order rests with the petitioner.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalCarrier ConsentJudicial DiscretionDelay in ApplicationReasonable ExcusePrejudice to CarrierLoss of Future BenefitsMotion for Reconsideration
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1935

Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Kirkman

This case involves an appeal regarding an order granting a plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite. The court affirmed the order, with the condition that the plaintiff consents to proceed to trial at Special Term, Part III, Kings County. The trial is scheduled for Monday, February 11, 1935, and requires the consent of the presiding justice. The decision was made by a panel of judges including Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder, and Johnston, who all concurred.

Injunction Pendente LiteMotion AffirmedTrial SchedulingAppellate ReviewProcedural OrderJudicial ConcurrenceSpecial TermKings County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 28,765 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