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

Barker v. Curtis

This workmen's compensation case examines whether Mr. Curtis was an employee or an independent contractor of Black Coal Company. Curtis sustained injuries in an automobile accident while en route from the mines to the company office. The Chancellor determined Curtis was an employee, citing Black Coal Company's control over mining methods, quantity, and delivery, as well as evidence of compensation coverage for Curtis. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the liberal construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act and upholding the Chancellor's findings of fact supported by material evidence.

Employee Status DeterminationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWorkmen's Compensation ActEmployer Control FactorsMining OperationsIndustrial InjuryAppellate Court AffirmationChancellor's Factual FindingsStatutory InterpretationLabor Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Reeves

Dorothy Curtis, an independent contractor, sued Harold Reeves and Fred Rosenberg (RAHFG, Joint Venture) for breach of a custodial services contract after her termination. The Chancellor initially ruled in favor of Curtis, stating her independent contractor status prevented termination for misconduct unrelated to her duties. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that an employer can discharge an independent contractor for cause if their actions, such as making derogatory remarks about the employer to tenants, harm the employer's business interests or reputation, regardless of work quality. Consequently, Curtis's lawsuit was dismissed.

Breach of ContractIndependent ContractorEmployment TerminationJust CauseBusiness InterestsReputation DamageDerogatory RemarksTenant RelationsAppellate ReversalMaster and Servant
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. 06-10-00099-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2011

Curtis Leo Williams v. State

Curtis Leo Williams appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, a state jail felony. The State alleged two prior felony convictions, which elevated the punishment range to a second-degree felony. In a related case, Williams also appealed a conviction for cocaine possession. The court addressed common issues in its opinion for cause number 06-10-00098-CR. Finding no error, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in this case.

Criminal AppealControlled SubstanceMarihuana PossessionFelony ConvictionPrior ConvictionsPunishment EnhancementAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentTexas Court of AppealsPro Se Appeal
References
2
Case No. 07-05-0208-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2005

Curtis Benard Robbins v. State

Appellant Curtis Bernard Robbins was convicted of improper photography or visual recording and sentenced to two years in a state jail facility. He filed a notice of appeal on June 7, 2005, challenging his conviction. However, his sentence was imposed on March 9, 2005, making the statutory deadline for filing the notice of appeal April 8, 2005, or April 23, 2005, with a timely extension motion. As the notice of appeal was filed well beyond this period, it was deemed untimely. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction, as a timely perfected appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite.

JurisdictionTimeliness of AppealNotice of AppealCriminal ProcedureImproper PhotographyVisual RecordingAppellate DismissalWant of JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsPost-Conviction Writ
References
1
Case No. 12-16-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2016

Curtis Dinger and Brian Scott Bradley v. Smith County, Texas

Curtis Dinger and Brian Scott Bradley, Whitehouse Police Department officers, were suspended after reporting sexual assault allegations against their superiors. They sued the City of Whitehouse and Smith County under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging Smith County assisted in creating pretextual reasons for their suspensions. The trial court granted Smith County's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. Dinger and Bradley appealed, arguing governmental immunity was waived. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Smith County's governmental immunity was not waived as it was neither the officers' employer nor a joint employer.

Texas Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeRetaliationEmployment LawStatutory InterpretationJoint EmployerPolice OfficersWhitehouse Police Department
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. G.E. Capital Modular Space

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee regarding the applicability of Tennessee Code Annotated section 20-1-119 in workers' compensation cases. This statute allows for amending a complaint to add third-party tortfeasors if comparative fault is an issue, extending the statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Carolyn Curtis, sought to use this statute to add G.E. Capital Modular Space and Bennett Truck Transport, Inc. as defendants after her employer, TRW, Inc., named them in a workers' compensation claim. The Court held that section 20-1-119 is inapplicable to workers' compensation actions because such benefits are awarded without regard to fault, thus comparative fault is not an issue. Consequently, the statute does not extend the limitation period for adding third-party tortfeasors in these cases, rendering the second certified question moot.

Workers' CompensationComparative FaultStatute of LimitationsThird-Party TortfeasorAmended ComplaintTennessee LawCertified QuestionsEmployer ImmunitySubrogation LienNo-Fault Liability
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05362 [220 AD3d 568]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2023

Matter of Baby Girl G. (Curtis M. R.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that granted the Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) motion for summary judgment, finding respondents Curtis M.R., Jr., and Tinesha G. derivatively neglected Baby Girl G. The court found ACS established a prima facie case based on prior neglect findings concerning the parents' older children, including their placement in foster care and termination of parental rights, and the parents' failure to ameliorate conditions. The Family Court properly took judicial notice of its own orders. The Appellate Division rejected appellants' objections to the Family Court's consideration of unsworn affidavits, citing sufficient other evidence and the appellants' failure to raise the objection below.

Derivative NeglectChild NeglectFamily CourtAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentFoster CareParental RightsJudicial NoticeUnsworn AffidavitsProcedural Objection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jennifer Curtis filed a discrimination charge against RadioShack Corporation alleging pregnancy-based sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Her charge was filed 342 days after her termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Curtis sought equitable tolling, arguing that the Dutchess County Human Rights Commission (DCHCR) misled her and lost her file. However, the court found that DCHCR explicitly stated it did not investigate complaints and that Curtis lacked reasonable diligence in following up for over seven months. Consequently, the court denied equitable tolling and granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss Curtis's First, Second, and Third causes of action as time-barred. Surviving claims exist under New York State Human Rights Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.

Equitable tollingTitle VIIDiscriminationPregnancy discriminationTimelinessStatute of LimitationsFederal courtDutchess CountyHuman Rights CommissionEEOC
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 93 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