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. M2016-01980-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

State of Tennessee v. Timothy A. Crowell

Timothy A. Crowell appealed his conviction for aggravated robbery and an eighteen-year sentence from Davidson County Criminal Court. His appeal contended errors by the trial court regarding the admission of partial surveillance video, hearsay evidence, and a photograph lineup during jury deliberations, as well as questioning the sufficiency of the evidence and the excessiveness of his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the evidence's admission or its sufficiency, and upholding the trial court's sentencing discretion. The court determined the state had no duty to acquire a complete surveillance video and that any hearsay admission was harmless. Additionally, the positive identification by the victim and the application of various enhancement factors justified the conviction and sentence.

Aggravated RobberyEyewitness IdentificationSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceSurveillance VideoDue ProcessSentencing ReviewEnhancement FactorsCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. E2014-00005-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2015

Michael Morgan v. Superior Catering Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an age discrimination claim. The plaintiff, Michael Morgan, initially sued Superior Catering Services. Later, Connelly Dean Cofer, Lynda Cofer, and Dean's Coffee Service were added as defendants. The key issues revolved around insufficient service of process on the newly added defendants and the admissibility of hearsay testimony. The trial court initially granted a new trial due to the improper admission of hearsay statements, but then reversed itself, reinstating the jury's verdict based on other evidence. The appellate court found that the service of process was indeed insufficient and that the hearsay error was not harmless, influencing the jury's decision. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationImproper Service of ProcessHearsay EvidenceWaiverApparent AuthorityHarmless ErrorJury VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewProcedural Error
References
36
Case No. 12-19-00265-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2020

Angel Rose Lee v. State

Angel Rose Lee appealed her conviction for sexual assault of a child, challenging the trial court's admission of expert witness testimony and hearsay evidence. Lee, who pleaded guilty to four counts and received concurrent ten-year sentences, argued that the expert opined on the victim's credibility and that forensic interview recordings were inadmissible hearsay. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found no abuse of discretion in allowing the forensic interviewer to testify about observations of coaching behavior, rather than direct credibility, and upheld the admission of interview recordings as a basis for the expert's opinion and for impeachment, noting that appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury.

Sexual Assault of a ChildExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidenceChild Victim CredibilityForensic InterviewWitness CoachingEvidentiary RulingsAbuse of Discretion StandardAppellate ProcedureTexas Criminal Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This case, presided over by Justice Paula J. Hepner, addresses the admissibility of out-of-court hearsay statements made by a child in a motion to modify an existing joint custody order. The petitioner sought to introduce such statements through witness testimony, which the respondent objected to. The court examined existing case law, noting that while the 'traditional requirements of the adversary system' may be relaxed in custody cases, there is no specific statutory or judicial exception for admitting a child's hearsay statements in custody proceedings unless the allegations are based on abuse or neglect. The court distinguished this case from those involving abuse or neglect, aligning with Ponzini v Ponzini, and ruled that since the modification petition does not allege abuse or neglect, the child's out-of-court statements are not admissible.

CustodyHearsay EvidenceChild StatementsFamily LawModification of CustodyAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse and NeglectFamily Court ActJoint CustodyJudicial Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Koretta W.

The respondent moved to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition, which charged arson, arguing it was defective due to hearsay and seeking to suppress statements based on the social-worker/client privilege (CPLR 4508). Judge Sara P. Schechter denied the dismissal motion, finding the petition not defective. While two supporting depositions were struck due to inadmissible hearsay, two others detailing conversations between social workers and the respondent were deemed admissible as admissions and not violative of CPLR 4508. The court balanced the privilege against strong public interests, including the truth-seeking function and the proper functioning of the child care system, ultimately overriding the privilege. The motion to suppress the statements was also denied because the respondent did not claim the statements were involuntarily made.

juvenile delinquencyarson chargessocial worker privilegeCPLR 4508admissibility of statementshearsay evidencesuppression of evidencechild protective servicesconfidentiality balancingchild care system
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Pipe Bending Co. v. Gibbs

Anson Gibbs suffered personal injuries after falling from a truck at Texas Pipe Bending Company. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin intervened to recover Worker's Compensation benefits. A jury found Texas Pipe Bending Company negligent, resulting in a judgment for Gibbs and the insurer. On appeal, Texas Pipe Bending Company challenged the admission of hearsay testimony, a res ipsa loquitur instruction, and the sufficiency of evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the hearsay admissible, the res ipsa loquitur instruction proper given the pleadings and facts, and sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence, while also finding insufficient evidence to raise an issue of Gibbs's failure to keep a proper lookout.

NegligencePersonal InjuryRes Ipsa LoquiturHearsay EvidenceAgencySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionPremises LiabilityTruck Accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Michling

This workers' compensation case revolves around the admissibility of hearsay evidence concerning an alleged on-the-job injury. Mrs. Martha Michling, a statutory beneficiary, sought death benefits for her husband, Hugo Michling, who died from a cerebral hemorrhage. The sole evidence of his alleged injury—hitting his head on a bulldozer—was his statement to his wife upon returning home, presented as a res gestae utterance. The Supreme Court reviewed whether this uncorroborated hearsay statement could serve as independent proof of the accident itself. Citing precedent requiring independent evidence of the occurrence for res gestae admissibility, the court determined that the lower courts erred in admitting the testimony without such corroboration. Consequently, the judgments favoring Michling's beneficiaries were reversed, and judgment was rendered for the petitioner, Truck Insurance Exchange.

Workers' CompensationHearsayRes GestaeEvidence AdmissibilityAccidental InjuryCerebral HemorrhageScope of EmploymentTexas Supreme CourtIndependent ProofSufficiency of Evidence
References
21
Case No. 10 Civ. 0699
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. City of New York

This Opinion & Order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses the admissibility of 'decline to prosecute' (DP) forms in a class action against the City of New York. Plaintiffs sought to use these forms as evidence of the NYPD's alleged unconstitutional trespass stops and arrests in NYCHA buildings for class certification and trial. The City argued against their admission as hearsay and legal conclusions. The Court ruled the DP forms admissible, primarily under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)), and found arresting officers' statements admissible as party-opponent admissions. The decision emphasized the forms' probative value and the lack of alternative evidence, despite concerns about implied legal conclusions, given the unique context of a class action challenging systemic practices.

Admissibility of EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsPolice PracticesTrespass ArrestsNYCHA BuildingsClass ActionFederal Rules of EvidenceProbable CauseLegal Conclusions
References
28
Case No. 2005 NY Slip Op 25220
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2005

Matter of Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This Family Court case addresses the admissibility of a child's out-of-court statements in a custody modification proceeding. Petitioner Jacqueline B. sought to modify an existing joint custody order with respondent Peter K. The central question was whether the child's hearsay statements, relating to issues like communication problems and incompatible parenting styles—but not allegations of abuse or neglect—could be admitted into evidence. Presiding Justice Paula J. Hepner reviewed established case law, including _Ponzini v Ponzini_, and concluded that without specific allegations of abuse or neglect, hearsay statements from a child are inadmissible in custody proceedings under Article 6 of the Family Court Act. The court distinguished this scenario from child protective proceedings where such exceptions might apply and ruled that the child's statements were not admissible.

Custody ModificationHearsay AdmissibilityChild Witness StatementsFamily Court ProceedingsEvidentiary RulesParental RightsAbuse and Neglect AllegationsDue ProcessJoint CustodyLaw Guardian Role
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dolan

This contested special proceeding, commenced under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, sought the continuation of an assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) order for respondent Joan W. The court addressed three primary issues: the admissibility of hearsay statements from non-parties in hospital records, a motion to quash a subpoena for the respondent’s expert witness's notes, and the continuation of the AOT plan. The court ruled that hearsay statements relevant to diagnosis and treatment are admissible under the business records exception, extending the People v Ortega holding to Mental Hygiene Law hearings. Additionally, the motion to quash the subpoena for the expert’s notes was denied, as the respondent waived privilege by placing her condition in controversy. Ultimately, with the respondent's consent, the court granted the continuation of the AOT order for one year, retroactive to September 23, 2011.

Assisted Outpatient TreatmentMental Hygiene LawHearsay AdmissibilityBusiness Records ExceptionHospital RecordsMedical Diagnosis and TreatmentSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeSubpoena QuashalKendra's Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,302 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