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

Treadway v. Shanks

Kenda Carolyn Treadway appealed two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) issued to enforce the division of George Payton Shanks's retirement benefits from their 1981 divorce decree. The QDROs, entered in May and June 1998, limited Treadway's share to benefits accrued before the divorce, while she contended the original decree granted her 25% of all retirement benefits, including post-divorce accruals. The court examined the language of the 1981 divorce decree, concluding it unambiguously awarded Treadway 25% of Shanks's total retirement benefit. Consequently, the QDROs that restricted her interest altered the substantive property division made in the divorce decree, which is not permitted. The court reversed the trial court's judgments and remanded the case for the entry of revised QDROs that conform to the original 1981 divorce decree.

DivorceQualified Domestic Relations OrderRetirement BenefitsProperty DivisionCommunity PropertyAppellate JurisdictionRes JudicataStatutory InterpretationPension PlanDefined Benefit Plan
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arena v. Arena

This is an appeal brought by Javier Arena following a judgment in favor of his former spouse, Ellen Francis Arena. The dispute originated from a divorce proceeding where Ellen sought to enforce and clarify the Decree of Divorce concerning her share of Javier's retirement plans and damages for delayed payments. Javier argued that the enforcement action was preempted by ERISA and that distribution was prohibited by federal law. The court determined that the Decree of Divorce constituted a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), thereby exempting it from ERISA preemption. It also found Javier liable in his individual capacity for the delay in transferring assets. The judgment was affirmed with modifications to ensure consistency with the findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding Ellen Arena $49,537.78 plus interest, and setting aside attorney's fees awarded for appeal.

DivorceERISAQDRORetirement BenefitsProperty DivisionAttorney's FeesConversionFederal PreemptionSpousal RightsFiduciary Duty
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Keen v. Weaver

This case concerns the enforceability of a former spouse's waiver of ERISA pension plan benefits within a divorce decree, even when the plan participant did not update the beneficiary designation before death. Frank Weaver designated his then-wife, Patsy Keen, as the primary beneficiary of his ERISA annuity plans. Upon their divorce, Patsy waived all interest in these plans in an agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. Frank later died without changing his beneficiary designation. His alternative beneficiary, Rita Weaver (whose estate is represented by Diana Weaver), sued Patsy, claiming entitlement to the plan proceeds due to Patsy's waiver. The Supreme Court of Texas held that ERISA does not preclude a pension plan beneficiary from waiving an interest in the plan. The court concluded that Patsy Keen's waiver was specific, knowing, and voluntary, and is therefore enforceable under federal common law, affirming the appellate court's judgment against Patsy Keen.

ERISAPension PlanBeneficiary WaiverDivorce DecreeFederal Common LawPreemptionAnti-alienation ProvisionQualified Domestic Relations OrderBeneficiary DesignationPlan Administration
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Ellis

This is an appeal by Mary Helen Marshall Ellis, the wife, from a Shelby County Circuit Court decree granting a divorce to Henry C. Ellis, the husband, on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife raised numerous assignments of error, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the husband's income, the inadmissibility of certain expert and investigative reports, and the disallowance of psychiatrist Dr. Mark Ivie's testimony due to patient privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the income evidence exclusion was harmless error, and upholding the psychiatrist-patient privilege even when a spouse was present during consultations. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the finding that the wife was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment and that the defense of recrimination was properly considered.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentSpousal SupportChild CustodyEvidentiary RulingsPsychiatrist-Patient PrivilegeMarital PrivilegeRecrimination DefenseHarmless ErrorAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonsalves v. Roberts

This case originated from a petition to modify a final divorce decree, seeking an increase in child support. The primary legal question addressed was whether permanent partial disability benefits from workers' compensation should be considered as income for calculating child support obligations. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that only temporary total disability payments, received in lieu of wages, should be included, excluding permanent disability settlements. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that under T.C.A. § 50-6-223, courts possess the discretion to assign portions of periodic or lump sum workers' compensation awards to fulfill both present and prospective child support obligations, as well as to satisfy judgments for arrearages. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Child SupportWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityIncome for Child SupportDivorce ModificationArrearagesStatutory InterpretationTennessee Workers' Compensation LawJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John B. Ex Rel. L.A. v. Goetz

This memorandum addresses the Defendants' motion to vacate a Consent Decree concerning the provision of medical services to over 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Tennessee. The Plaintiffs, John B. and other minors, had previously filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the state failed to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services under the Medicaid Act. Defendants sought to vacate or modify the Consent Decree, citing new legal developments from Westside Mothers II and Brown v. Tennessee Dept. of Finance & Admin. The Court acknowledges these cases but ultimately denies the Defendants' motion to vacate and their alternate argument for modification, finding that the Consent Decree's provisions for outreach services and mandated medical assistance remain enforceable under federal law. The memorandum details the state's historical non-compliance and the ongoing necessity of the decree to ensure children receive essential healthcare.

Medicaid ActEPSDT servicesChildren's healthcareConsent DecreeState waiver programFederal fundingOutreach servicesMedical assistanceCompliance issuesManaged Care Organizations
References
28
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
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
12
Case No. 13-01-00628-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Bryan D. Bachus v. Sharla D. Bachus

This case concerns an appeal from a divorce decree based on a settlement agreement between Bryan D. Bachus (Appellant) and Sharla D. Bachus (Appellee). Appellant contested the decree's validity and the denial of his motion for new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of appellee's alleged drug abuse, withdrawal of consent to the agreement, lack of co-counsel's authority, and discrepancies between the settlement terms and the final decree. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, ruling that the trial court rendered judgment on the settlement agreement prior to the attempted revocation of consent. However, the appellate court found that the divorce decree's provisions for child possession and visitation deviated from the parties' settlement agreement. Consequently, the court reversed that specific portion of the decree and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to align the possession order with the original settlement agreement, while affirming all other aspects of the divorce decree.

DivorceChild CustodySettlement AgreementMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceConsent JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawChild Support
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,806 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