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

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. L-83-44-CA
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Ibarra v. Texas Employment Commission

This case originated in 1983 when Fidel B. Ibarra, Jr. and Mario Esparza sued the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) for denying unemployment benefits to aliens without INS work authorization. The lawsuit was certified as a class action representing all aliens denied benefits for this reason. A partial consent decree was established in 1985, addressing procedural issues, and a proposed final consent decree defining "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" was preliminarily approved in April 1986. The TEC subsequently moved to invalidate the final decree, citing a change in federal policy and requesting the re-joinder of federal agencies as defendants. Chief Judge Justice denied TEC's motions, affirmed the Magistrate's recommendation for approval, and ultimately approved the consent decree, deeming it fair, adequate, reasonable, and legally sound. The decree specifies various categories of eligible aliens and outlines procedures for notice and redetermination of claims.

Unemployment BenefitsAlien EligibilityClass ActionConsent DecreeImmigration and Naturalization ServiceTexas Employment CommissionFederal FundingWork AuthorizationPermanent Residence Under Color of LawSettlement Agreement
References
42
Case No. 10-13-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2014

in the Matter of the Marriage of Elaine Denise Landry and Robert Denison Landry and in the Interest of D.R.L., a Child

This appeal concerns Robert Denison Landry challenging a trial court's final decree of divorce on multiple grounds, including property division, child support, conservatorship, and an alleged lack of proper notice for the final hearing. The appellate court focused on the issue of notice, finding that Robert was not properly notified of the final hearing because the notice was sent directly to him, not his attorney, while he was still represented by counsel. This was deemed a violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Robert's motion for a new trial. The final decree of divorce was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

AppealDivorceFamily LawDue ProcessNotice RequirementsDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialProperty DivisionChild SupportChild Conservatorship
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Voth v. Felderhoff

This is a declaratory judgment action concerning the ownership and partition of three tracts of rural real property. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by relitigating ownership interests in these properties, despite two prior preliminary decrees having already determined these interests. The appellate court found that the trial court's preliminary decrees were final and conclusive judgments, and thus the trial court had lost jurisdiction to alter their terms in a subsequent jury trial. The court held that the trial court committed fundamental error by proceeding with the relitigation and by refusing to vacate its November 17, 1986, judgment, which was deemed void. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that the appellees take nothing by their counterclaim, reaffirming the finality of the earlier preliminary decrees.

PartitionDeclaratory JudgmentReal Property OwnershipFinal JudgmentsInterlocutory DecreesRes JudicataJurisdictionFundamental ErrorAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1986

United States v. New York

This memorandum-decision and order addresses a motion to intervene filed on August 26, 1986, by Craig G. Smith and Michael L. McMahon, and others similarly situated, in an existing employment discrimination case. The original action, commenced in 1977 by the United States against the State of New York, alleged discriminatory hiring practices by the New York State Police against minorities, leading to a 1979 final decree mandating a 40% minority hiring goal. The proposed intervenors, white males, sought to assert claims of reverse discrimination and modify the 1979 decree, arguing they were denied admission despite higher rankings than some minority applicants. Senior District Judge James T. Foley denied the motion to intervene, finding it untimely—seven years after the final decree—and noting that the State adequately represented the interests of its citizens. The court also cited Supreme Court precedent, affirming that race-conscious remedies can be necessary to cure past discrimination, even if innocent parties bear some burden.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationHiring QuotasAffirmative ActionIntervention (Legal)Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureTimelinessReverse DiscriminationPolice ForceConsent Decree
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1956

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

In this separation case, the Special Term initially granted a decree of separation to the plaintiff wife and awarded her custody of their six-year-old son. The appellate court found it difficult to assess the parents' qualifications solely from the record. It suggested that a thorough investigation by a trained social worker, available through the newly established Special Term, Part XII (Family Part), could help resolve doubts regarding custody. Consequently, the amended judgment of February 17, 1956, was modified, remitting the custody decision back to the trial justice for utilization of these services. Additionally, a motion to amend support and maintenance provisions was also remitted, pending the final custody decision.

SeparationChild CustodyRemittalJudicial ReviewSocial Worker InvestigationFamily LawAppellate DivisionSpecial TermParental FitnessSupport and Maintenance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a petition to modify a worker’s compensation lump sum settlement agreement. The appellant sustained a back injury in 1978, settling in 1980 for a 20% permanent partial disability based on an initial diagnosis of lumbosacral strain. Years later, a ruptured disc was diagnosed, prompting the appellant to file a petition in 1982 to modify the settlement, alleging mutual mistake of fact. The appellee moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was time-barred under T.R.C.P. 60.02, as it was filed more than one year after the final judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that claims based on mistake under T.R.C.P. 60.02(1) must be brought within one year, and subsection (5) cannot be used to circumvent this time limit.

Worker's CompensationLump Sum SettlementPetition to ModifyMutual Mistake of FactTimelinessT.R.C.P. 60.02Permanent Partial DisabilityRuptured DiscBack InjuryAffirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. E2018-02134-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2019

Kristin Marie Miclaus v. Andrei Miclaus

This case involves an appeal from the Probate Court for Cumberland County. The appellant, Andrei Miclaus (Father), appealed the trial court's denial of his Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 motion. This motion sought relief from a final decree of divorce, arguing he did not receive proper notice of the trial setting. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville determined that the appellant did not receive proper notice, therefore concluding that relief under Rule 60.02(1) should have been granted. The appellate court vacated the final decree of divorce and remanded the case for further proceedings.

DivorceChild SupportSpousal SupportMarital EstatePermanent Parenting PlanNotice of TrialDue ProcessRule 60.02Excusable NeglectMeritorious Defense
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 3,608 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