Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

This appeal concerns the effective date of a judgment against Kenneth E. Nelson, which dictates whether the judgment has expired. The Appellant argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and law of the case should prevent the Plaintiff from asserting that the judgment was entered in 2004. The trial court determined that the judgment had not expired, holding its effective date to be October 7, 2004, following a remand that resolved a statute of limitations issue and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the issues justiciable and within the chancery court's jurisdiction, and rejected the arguments based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and equitable estoppel.

Judgment ExpirationStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelLaw of the CaseFraudulent ConveyancePost-Judgment InterestSubject Matter JurisdictionDirect AppealAppellate ReviewDavidson County Chancery Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Washburn v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

This workers' compensation case involves an appeal by Gary and Sharron Washburn, individually and as representatives of the estate of Howard S. Washburn, challenging a summary judgment granted in favor of Associated Indemnity Corporation. Howard Washburn, a security guard, died while commuting to an overtime assignment. The Industrial Accident Board initially denied benefits, and both parties filed notices to appeal the decision. The primary legal question is whether the doctrines of judicial or equitable estoppel prevented the carrier from denying that Howard was in the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court found neither doctrine applicable, specifically noting the lack of reliance by the Washburns for equitable estoppel, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment for the carrier.

Workers' CompensationSummary Judgment AppealJudicial EstoppelEquitable EstoppelCourse of EmploymentCommuting InjuryTexas Workers' CompensationIndustrial Accident Board AppealAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Dispute

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Freeport v. Sanders

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed their complaint after granting the third-party defendants' motion for renewal. The appellate court found that Special Term erred in dismissing the complaint on collateral estoppel grounds, as the movants failed to demonstrate that the issue was necessarily decided in a prior Workers' Compensation Board proceeding. The Board's finding regarding a settlement without insurer consent did not require a determination of past workers' compensation payments. Furthermore, Special Term erred on equitable estoppel grounds, noting that this doctrine applies against governmental subdivisions only when manifest injustice is shown, which was not the case here. Additionally, equitable estoppel was not available to the third-party defendants as no representations were made to them by the plaintiff, and no claim was asserted against them. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the third-party defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

Collateral EstoppelEquitable EstoppelGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissAppealGovernmental SubdivisionCivil ProcedureAppellate Practice

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Clinton County, which granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff alleged that they contracted throat and tongue cancer as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes from 1961 to 1991. The primary issue on appeal was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should prevent the defendants from using the three-year statute of limitations as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish grounds for equitable estoppel. This was because the plaintiff had timely awareness of the facts requiring further inquiry before the statute of limitations expired, and did not demonstrate a unique fiduciary relationship with the defendants.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCancer LitigationSmoking Related IllnessFiduciary RelationshipMisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

This case concerns a paternity proceeding initiated by the petitioner father for the child Nia, born January 18, 1992. Despite blood tests excluding him as the biological father, the petitioner sought an order of filiation based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The respondent mother had consistently represented the petitioner as the child's father to family, hospital staff, and the CWA caseworker, accepting his financial and emotional support and allowing a strong father-child bond to develop. The court found the respondent's later denial of paternity incredible and applied equitable estoppel, concluding it was in the child's best interests to maintain the established father-child relationship. Consequently, an order of filiation was granted to the petitioner, adjudicating him as the child's father.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. Beale

Petitioner sought a stay of arbitration and a declaratory judgment arguing that a police vehicle operated by Respondent Beale lacked Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) coverage for an October 2011 accident. Although the court initially agreed that the policy did not mandate SUM coverage for police vehicles based on the law at the time of execution, it ultimately applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The court found that the petitioner had delayed over four years in denying coverage, participating in discovery, negotiations, and arbitration, leading the respondent to rely on the belief of coverage and settle an underlying negligence action. Due to this unreasonable delay and the resulting prejudice to the respondent, the court estopped the petitioner from denying SUM coverage. Consequently, the petition for a stay of arbitration was denied, and the respondents' motions to proceed with SUM arbitration and for a declaratory judgment of equitable estoppel were granted.

Equitable EstoppelSUM CoverageUninsured/Underinsured Motorist CoverageInsurance Policy InterpretationStay of ArbitrationDeclaratory JudgmentPolice Vehicle CoverageDelay in Denying CoveragePrejudiceCPLR 7503 (b)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fahrner v. SW Manufacturing, Inc.

Andrew Fahrner sued SW Manufacturing, Inc. for retaliatory discharge and employment discrimination, alleging he was fired after a work-related injury despite the employer citing a reduction in force. The defendant sought dismissal based on the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied dismissal by applying the "discovery rule," but the Court of Appeals reversed. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' outcome on the discovery rule but clarified that the rule can apply to such cases, though it found Fahrner's action accrued on the date of unequivocal termination notice. Crucially, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to assess whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should toll the statute of limitations, distinguishing it from the discovery rule. The court emphasized that merely disputing the employer's stated reason for termination is insufficient to invoke equitable estoppel.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleEquitable EstoppelFraudulent ConcealmentWorkers' Compensation LawTennessee Human Rights ActAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,875 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. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Washburn v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Freeport v. Sanders

Collateral EstoppelEquitable EstoppelGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionMotion to DismissAppealGovernmental SubdivisionCivil ProcedureAppellate Practice

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Robare v. Fortune Brands, Inc.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCancer LitigationSmoking Related IllnessFiduciary RelationshipMisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Anton W. v. Nadine V.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelOrder of FiliationBest Interests of the ChildFather-Child RelationshipBlood Test ExclusionChild Protective ProceedingParental RightsFamily LawChild Support

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. v. Beale

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Laura G. v. Peter G.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fahrner v. SW Manufacturing, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare

References

Showing 1-10 of 1,875 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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