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. 02A01-9802-CV-00050
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1999

Kevin Kathleen Stacey v. Donald Ray Stacey

This case addresses the modification of a divorce decree concerning child support. Kevin Kathleen Stacey (Wife) sought an increase in Donald Ray Stacey's (Husband) child support obligation. The core issue revolved around whether a 'significant variance' existed, justifying modification, and if Husband's stock option income should be included in gross income calculations. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in failing to determine a significant variance and clarified that stock options should be factored into income. It reversed in part, affirmed in part, increased the child support to $1,973 per month, removed the previous income cap, and remanded the case for the setting of attorney's fees for the appeal.

Child SupportDivorce Decree ModificationStock Option IncomeIncome CalculationSignificant Variance TestChild Support GuidelinesAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesMarital Property DivisionTennessee Law
References
9
Case No. 01-S-01-9508-CV-00126
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1996

Ray Donald Hawkins v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Tennessee - Concurring

Ray Donald Hawkins, an employee of Nashville Electric Service, sought workers' compensation benefits for a mental and emotional disability. This disability allegedly arose from the stress of being informed, falsely, that he was about to be terminated after thirty-one years of service. The trial court initially denied a motion to dismiss but later granted it, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. On appeal, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. The panel concluded that depression resulting from an impending termination notice does not constitute an "accident" under Tennessee workers’ compensation law. The panel also rejected arguments regarding the trial judge's reconsideration of the motion to dismiss and the obligation to transfer the case to another judge, citing Tenn. R. Civ. Proc. 54.02 and 59.06.

Workers' CompensationMental DisabilityEmotional DisabilityStress-Related InjuryTerminationAccident DefinitionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewTennessee LawEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. 04-08-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2009

Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam v. Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of the Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication across land owned by Appellants Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming an easement for the benefit of the public and subdivision lot owners. However, the appellate court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use. The court concluded that mere acquiescence to use by neighbors, without additional factors implying donative intent, was not sufficient to prove an implied dedication. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the property is not subject to an easement by implied dedication.

Property LawEasement by Implied DedicationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentReal Estate DisputeDonative IntentPublic UseLand SubdivisionTexas LawLake Access
References
17
Case No. M2007-01799-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2008

In Re Estate of Lucille Ray Heirs of Howard Ray v. Magdalene Long and Joshua (Josh) Todd Crews

This case involves a will contest concerning the estate of Lucille Ray. The heirs of her predeceased son, Howard Ray, challenged her will, alleging it was procured through undue influence by her daughters, Magdalene Long and Joyce Hess, who were beneficiaries. After a jury trial, the jury found that the will was not a product of undue influence and was valid. The son's children appealed, arguing a presumption of undue influence due to a confidential relationship between Magdalene Long and Lucille Ray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that material evidence supported the finding and that any presumption of undue influence was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, including independent advice from the drafting attorney.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityConfidential RelationshipJury VerdictAppellate ReviewMaterial EvidencePresumption of Undue InfluenceIndependent AdviceEstate Law
References
12
Case No. M2003-01158-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2004

Tonya Patrice Ray v. William Martin Ray v. Stephen Eric Staggs

This case concerns an appeal by Stephen Eric Staggs (Mr. Moore), the natural father of minor twins, challenging a trial court's order on custody and visitation. He contested the visitation rights granted to the stepfather, William Martin Ray, the refusal to change the children's surname to Moore, and the reliance on a sealed psychological report. The Court of Appeals affirmed the stepfather's visitation, finding it in the children's best interests, and upheld the trial court's division of costs and denial of attorney's fees. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision regarding the children's surname, ordering it changed to 'Moore' to affirm their bond with their natural father, given his custody and the biological parents' current surnames. The court affirmed the requirement for the children to receive further psychological counseling due to emotional distress.

Custody DisputeChild VisitationSurname ChangeParental RightsStepparent VisitationPsychological EvaluationChild SupportBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dam v. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorissa Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication existed across a portion of land owned by Appellants Daniel Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court initially granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming the easement. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the evidence legally insufficient to establish an easement by implied dedication. Specifically, the court determined there was insufficient proof of donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use, noting that mere acquiescence or limited "owner access" was not enough to meet the heavy burden required.

Easement by Implied DedicationProperty RightsDonative IntentPublic AccessLake Corpus ChristiPernitas Point SubdivisionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Property Law
References
17
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1, No. 18, No. 22
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Derbera Ann Lewis sought judicial review after an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council denied her application for Title XVI supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Lewis claimed disability due to multiple impairments, including chronic back pain, hypertension, diabetes, and depression. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment from Lewis and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The review focused on whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence regarding Lewis's medical condition, subjective complaints, and residual functional capacity. Ultimately, the court denied Lewis's motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner's motion, and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, finding it supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Social Security DisabilitySSI BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeSummary JudgmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical ImpairmentsMental Retardation ClaimResidual Functional CapacityVocational Expert TestimonyPsychiatric Evaluation
References
63
Case No. 01-10-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Dallas National Insurance Company v. Edwina Lewis, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bryant K. Lewis

The Dallas National Insurance Company appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed a Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) appeals panel decision. The TDI panel had found Bryant K. Lewis intoxicated at the time of his death, but the trial court concluded he was not. Bryant, a shuttle bus driver, died in a bus fire, and his workers' compensation claim was initially denied by Dallas National due to alleged intoxication from cocaine. The trial court's decision, relying on lay witness testimony of Bryant's normal behavior and expert testimony regarding the indeterminacy of cocaine's effect from the medical report, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Bryant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties.

Intoxication DefenseCocaine UseSufficiency of EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment ReversalMental Faculties AssessmentPhysical Faculties AssessmentTDI Appeals Panel Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Case No. M2000-01529-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Clarence Lewis v. State

Clarence Eugene Lewis, a prisoner, sustained a severe hand injury while operating a punch press in a prison workshop and sought damages from the State of Tennessee for alleged negligence by his supervisors. The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed his claim, attributing over 50% of the fault to Mr. Lewis's own negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record, assessing the supervisors' duty of care, breach of duty, foreseeability of risk, and causation, finding that while supervisors contributed to the injury by failing to provide proper training and safety measures, Mr. Lewis's act of placing his hand in the machine was the most direct cause. The appellate court affirmed the Claims Commission's finding of comparative fault, upholding the dismissal based on Mr. Lewis being at least 50% responsible for his injury.

PrisonerNegligenceWorkplace InjuryComparative FaultIndustrial AccidentSafety RegulationsDue CareClaims CommissionAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 663 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