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. M2015-02212-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2017

Josephine Phelps v. Vern Benke, Jr.

This case involves an appeal concerning a real property dispute over a "Barn Property" in Davidson County, Tennessee. Appellants Josephine Phelps and Roy Smith sought to establish ownership through adverse possession, claiming they had possessed the property for over seven years and that appellee Vern Benke, Jr.'s, counterclaim for ejectment was untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Appellants had not met the seven-year statutory requirement for adverse possession when they initiated their lawsuit. The court also held that Benke's ejectment counterclaim was timely due to the relation-back doctrine under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-114, and rejected the laches defense as it was not properly raised.

Adverse PossessionEjectmentReal Property LawStatute of LimitationsCounterclaimLachesColor of TitleAppellate ReviewDavidson CountyProperty Rights
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherrod v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

This case concerns post-trial motions in a civil action where plaintiff Howell H. Sherrod, Jr. sued defendant Piedmont Aviation, Inc. for unjust discrimination, wrongful ejection, and intentional infliction of mental distress. A jury awarded Sherrod $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, alternatively, for a new trial, primarily contesting the punitive damages award under Illinois and federal law. The Court denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on punitive damages for the federal and wrongful ejection claims. However, the Court found the damage awards excessive and ordered a remittitur of $79,000 for compensatory damages and $85,000 for punitive damages, with a new trial on damages to be granted if the plaintiff does not accept the reduction.

Punitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesRemittiturDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict (JNOV)New TrialAirline DiscriminationWrongful EjectionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFederal Aviation Act
References
39
Case No. M2006-00872-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2008

Eric Magness v. Terrell W. Couser

This case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals involves a property dispute between neighbors Eric and Kathleen Magness (plaintiffs) and Edith G. Couser and Thomas Couser (defendants) concerning quiet title, ejectment, and injunctive relief. The trial court imposed sanctions on the defendants for discovery non-compliance, granted partial summary judgment to the Magnesses, and issued a permanent injunction along with damages. On appeal, the Court affirmed the partial summary judgment but reversed and remanded aspects of the injunction, damages, and discretionary costs, finding some provisions overly vague or broad and certain damage awards unsubstantiated.

Property DisputeEjectmentQuiet TitleInjunctive ReliefDiscovery SanctionsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDamagesCostsTrespass
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, operating a prime mover to hoist bricks onto a scaffold, was ejected when the machine flipped forward. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It ruled that the accident was gravity-related, stemming from the prime mover's failure to provide adequate protection or the inability of the equipment to support the load. The defendant's arguments regarding comparative negligence or the need for further discovery were rejected, as comparative negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and additional testimony would not alter the outcome. The court reiterated that if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame.

Construction AccidentHoisting Equipment FailurePrime Mover AccidentScaffold WorkGravity AccidentSummary Judgment GrantedLabor Law § 240(1)Comparative Negligence IrrelevantStatutory DutyWorkplace Ejection
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06302 [233 AD3d 542]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Harjo-Codd v. Tishman Constr. Corp.

Jeannette Harjo-Codd was injured after being ejected from a bucket lift while affixing plastic sheets to scaffolding, falling approximately 20 feet when her lanyard's protective device failed. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court initially denied as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment. The court based its decision on consistent affidavits from the injured plaintiff, coworkers, and an admission from the construction manager's representative. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or show that further discovery would yield such evidence.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentGravity-Related InjuryBucket Lift AccidentScaffolding SafetyPrima Facie EntitlementAppellate ReviewProcedural ReversalWorkplace SafetyPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00821 [158 AD3d 609]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2018

Detringo v. South Is. Family Med., LLC

The plaintiff, Ruth Detringo, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her cause of action for breach of contract. Detringo alleged she was ejected from South Island Family Medical, LLC's facility despite an appointment, leading her to sue for breach of contract. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court held that Detringo failed to state a cause of action for breach of contract to provide medical services, citing vague and conclusory allegations regarding contract formation and terms. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged damages, being in the nature of pain and suffering, are not recoverable in such a breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractMedical ServicesDismissalPleading SufficiencyDamagesPain and SufferingAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
20
Case No. 12-02-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2004

Paul Samuel Goldberg and Pacific Motor Transport Company, D/B/A Pacer v. James Dicks

James Dicks was injured after being ejected from a pickup truck following an evasive maneuver to avoid a collision with an eighteen-wheeler driven by Paul Samuel Goldberg, an employee of Pacific Motor Transport Company d/b/a Pacer. Dicks sued Goldberg and Pacer for negligence, and a jury found Goldberg entirely at fault, awarding Dicks significant damages. On appeal, Goldberg and Pacer challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding contributory negligence, foreseeability, and the damage awards. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on negligence and foreseeability, and upheld the awards for future damages. However, the court modified the judgment by reducing the award for past medical expenses to the proven amount.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityDamagesMedical ExpensesFuture Medical CareMental AnguishPhysical Pain
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25049
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2025

Emery v. Village of Clinton

Plaintiff Robert Emery, an employee of the Town of Kirkland Highway Department, was injured at a construction site in the Village of Clinton while attempting to reinsert a pin into an excavator's thumb to change its functionality. The pin ejected and struck him in the head. Emery and his wife sued the Village of Clinton and John Spinella Excavation Company, Inc. alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The court dismissed all claims against the Village of Clinton and dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims against Spinella Excavating. However, the court denied Spinella Excavating's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, allowing these claims to proceed to trial due to unresolved questions of fact regarding Spinella, Sr.'s control and potential breach of duty.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Industrial Code ViolationsExcavator SafetySafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentNegligence LiabilitySupervisory ControlEquipment OperationEmployer Duty
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Tucker

This negligence case revolves around the death of E. E. Tucker, a passenger who was forcibly ejected from a street car by its operator, Robert Talley. Following a verbal dispute where Tucker used abusive language, Talley attempted to remove him, leading to a scuffle during which Tucker was struck and fell, sustaining fatal injuries. Mrs. E. E. Tucker, the widow, sued for negligence. The jury found that the operator used excessive force and failed to exercise a high degree of care, leading to Tucker's death. They awarded damages to Mrs. Tucker, which the trial court reduced through remittitur. The defendant appealed on four points, challenging the jury instructions on the duty of care, alleged improper jury arguments, and the excessiveness of damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of negligence, the damages, and dismissing the appellant's other contentions.

NegligenceWrongful DeathExcessive ForceAssault and BatteryCommon Carrier LiabilityPassenger EjectionDuty of CareJury InstructionsDamagesRemittitur
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 13 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