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

Vaughn v. Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc.

In this workers' compensation action, the employee, Barnett Vaughn, sustained a compensable back injury on September 12, 1988, while working for Shelby Williams of Tennessee, Inc. The Circuit Court of Hamblen County awarded Vaughn 80 percent permanent partial disability and temporary total disability benefits, along with a 25 percent bad faith penalty. The employer appealed, arguing that the trial court's decision was improperly based, in part, on the judge's personal observations of the plaintiff outside of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court found this to be reversible error, stating that a judge should not base decisions on extrajudicial knowledge. The judgment of the trial court was vacated in its entirety, and the matter was remanded for a new trial before a different judge.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityBad Faith PenaltyJudicial MisconductExtrajudicial ObservationsReversible ErrorJudicial ImpartialityEvidence RulesRemand for New Trial
References
10
Case No. I1500012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2017

State of Tennessee v. Henri Brooks

Henri Brooks, a former Shelby County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to making a false entry on an election document. The trial court denied her request for judicial diversion, imposing two years of probation. On appeal, Brooks contended the trial court abused its discretion by relying on facts outside the record, including its personal recollection of news reports about a dismissed assault case and a County Commission meeting, and by speculating about her mental health. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee agreed, finding that the trial judge's reliance on extrajudicial observations and speculation constituted an abuse of discretion. The appellate court reversed the denial of judicial diversion and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge to ensure impartiality.

Judicial MisconductSentencing HearingJudicial DiversionImproper EvidenceExtrajudicial KnowledgeTrial Court ErrorAppellate ReviewRecusal of JudgeCriminal CourtFalse Election Document
References
48
Case No. 92 Civ. 4884 (RJW)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Terry

This opinion addresses and denies two motions filed by defendant Randall Terry in connection with his criminal contempt trial. Terry sought the recusal of Senior District Judge Robert J. Ward, alleging personal bias based on the judge's comments during prior civil contempt hearings. The Court denied this motion, asserting that its observations stemmed from judicial proceedings and did not indicate an extrajudicial source of bias or create an appearance of impropriety. Terry also moved to present constitutional arguments as a defense against the preliminary injunction he allegedly violated. This motion was similarly denied under the collateral bar rule, which prohibits collateral attacks on court orders in contempt proceedings unless the order is "transparently invalid"—a standard the Court found was not met.

Criminal ContemptMotion to RecuseJudicial BiasCollateral Bar RuleFirst Amendment RightsPreliminary Injunction ViolationFederal ProcedureDue ProcessDisqualification of JudgeExtrajudicial Source Doctrine
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byfield v. Chapman

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated a lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was subjected to a beating on February 16, 2011, which he claims led to him observing blood in his urine five days later. Defendants subsequently filed a Motion in Limine, seeking to prevent the plaintiff from testifying about his observation of blood in his urine without expert medical testimony to establish causation. Defendants argued that the injury was complex and cited their own expert's opinion attributing the bleeding to benign prostatic hypertrophy. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law, denied the defendants' motion, ruling that the observation of blood in urine following a beating is not an injury so complex that a lay jury cannot assess causation based on common knowledge and the presented evidence, including conflicting expert opinions.

Motion in LimineExpert TestimonyCausationLay Witness Testimony42 U.S.C. § 1983Prison OfficialsPhysical InjuryBlood in UrineFederal Rules of EvidencePro Se Plaintiff
References
12
Case No. 07-04-0304-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2005

State v. Andrew Bennett Lockhart

The State appealed the trial court's order granting Andrew Bennett Lockhart's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Department of Public Safety trooper Chris Ecker stopped Lockhart after observing his vehicle's right tires cross the solid white line on Interstate 40. Following a warning citation and a consensual vehicle search, marijuana was discovered, leading to Lockhart's prosecution. The trial court initially granted the motion to suppress, citing Ecker's 'hunch' and lack of observed criminal offense prior to the stop. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, deferring to the trial court's factual finding that Lockhart did cross the fog line, which provided probable cause for the traffic stop under the Texas Transportation Code. The court emphasized that an officer's subjective motive does not invalidate an objectively reasonable stop based on an observed traffic violation.

traffic stopmotion to suppressprobable causereasonable suspicionTexas Transportation Codedriving on improved shoulderappellate reviewjudicial discretioncredibility of witnessessearch and seizure
References
57
Case No. ADJ6830729
Regular
Apr 21, 2010

ALFONSO ESCOBAR vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order suspending action was not a final order. However, the Board treated the filing as a Petition for Removal, granted it, and rescinded the judge's order suspending action. This action allows the matter to return to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the defendant's Petition to Compel Deposition. The WCJ's observation that the deponent should not be deposed again was clarified as merely an observation, not a binding ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionPetition to Compel DepositionProof of ServiceProof of NoticeDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFinal Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarpley v. Hornyak

Landowners (Tarpleys) sued adjoining landowners (Hornyaks) alleging that a concrete causeway built over a creek caused flooding on their property, constituting a nuisance. The trial judge, instead of hearing all evidence, personally visited the site during a flood and based his decision solely on his observations, ordering the causeway removed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a judge's personal observations cannot be the sole basis for a judgment and must be supported by evidence in the record. The case was remanded for further proceedings because the defendants were deprived of their right to present evidence and defend against the claims.

Nuisance LawProperty RightsJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureTrial Judge DiscretionEvidentiary StandardsDue ProcessSite VisitPersonal ObservationCausation
References
35
Case No. 06-08-00024-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Charles Terrell McClure v. State

Charles Terrell McClure appealed his sentence for constructive delivery of methamphetamine, challenging the admission of extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase. He argued insufficient evidence corroborated his extrajudicial confession and that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that extrajudicial confessions of extraneous offenses do not require corroboration in the punishment phase and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, especially considering McClure had filed an application for community supervision.

Criminal LawExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCorroboration of ConfessionExtrajudicial AdmissionProbative ValueUnfair PrejudiceSentencing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2006

Robles v. City of New York

Plaintiff was allegedly injured after falling on a snowy and icy curb cut ramp in Manhattan. The defendants, the City of New York, were unable to locate Sanitation Department records that would indicate whether City workers were involved in snow removal in the specific area. Plaintiff argued these missing records were crucial to establish that City workers could have observed and remedied the dangerous condition. Defendants countered that they properly prioritize snow removal operations, making any observations by City employees irrelevant as they would not have been able to abandon assigned tasks. The court recognized the municipality's need to establish snow removal priorities. The Supreme Court's order imposing a sanction of a missing documents charge on defendants was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the sanction was vacated.

Municipal LiabilitySnow RemovalIcy ConditionsNegligence ClaimsDiscovery SanctionsMissing DocumentsPrioritization of Public ServicesAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme CourtCurb Cut Ramp
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 266 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