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. W2001-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2002

Terri Jackson v. Danny Jackson

This case involves an appeal concerning the calculation of an obligor parent's net income for child support purposes. Appellant Danny L. Jackson sought a reduction in his child support obligations, arguing that temporary living expenses incurred due to a job relocation and Alabama state income taxes should be deducted from his gross income. The trial court denied his motion, finding no significant variance existed under the child support guidelines. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the guidelines' provision for deducting expenses applies only to self-employment income, not to employees like the Appellant. Thus, the lower court did not err in refusing the deductions.

Child SupportNet Income CalculationGross IncomeTemporary Living ExpensesIncome Tax DeductionSignificant VarianceAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementDivorce ProceedingsObligor Parent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Campos v. Campos

This case involves an appeal by a respondent father concerning child support arrears. An initial support order was issued by default, and the arrears amount was subsequently recalculated multiple times by a Hearing Examiner. The Family Court confirmed an order setting arrears at $23,310. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that the Hearing Examiner failed to ascertain whether the respondent's income between 1990 and 1993 fell below or equaled the poverty income guidelines, as mandated by Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g). Given the respondent's documented unemployment, SSI benefits, and public assistance, the court concluded that child support arrears should not have exceeded $500 during that period. The matter was remitted for a new determination of arrears consistent with the poverty income guidelines.

Child Support ArrearsPoverty GuidelinesFamily Court ActSSI BenefitsPublic AssistanceUnemploymentPsychological ConditionRes JudicataAppellate ReviewReversal
References
5
Case No. 09-88-009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1989

Pate v. McClain

This case involves a dispute between former law firm partners Gordon R. Pate, Joe Michael Dodson (Appellants), and Kyle McClain (Appellee) regarding McClain's share of partnership profits after his withdrawal. McClain, a 15% partner in 'Pate, Dodson and McClain,' sued for his share of contingent fees from the Arrant and Whitehead cases. The partnership agreement was verbal, stipulating a 70%-15%-15% profit division. The jury found that the fees from both cases were partnership income and awarded McClain $23,250 as his unpaid share of profits, along with attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court affirmed the findings that the fees were partnership income and the trial attorney's fees, reformed the appellate attorney's fees, but reversed and remanded the damages award (Special Issue No. 3) because the jury awarded a gross amount instead of net profits, as pleaded, and the calculation was mathematically incorrect. The court emphasized the need for formal accounts in partnership dissolutions.

Partnership disputeLaw firm dissolutionContingent feesNet profitsGross incomeBreach of contractFiduciary dutiesAttorney's feesAppellate reviewPartial remand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Cambridge Owners Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying a petition that challenged the Department of Transportation's decision to install a City Bike Share station. The petitioner argued that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, and violated the City Environmental Quality Review Act. However, the motion court concluded that the respondent's decision was based on sufficient environmental review, adhered to siting guidelines, and possessed a rational basis, thus dismissing the proceeding. The judgment, entered on October 30, 2013, was unanimously affirmed.

City Bike ShareEnvironmental ReviewCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousDepartment of TransportationNew York CountyLand UseUrban PlanningPublic ProjectsJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivo v. Olivo

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two cases, Tan-chick v Tanchick and Olivo v Olivo, concerning the equitable distribution of early retirement incentive packages accepted by former husbands post-divorce. The incentive package from Eastman Kodak Company included an Enhanced Retirement Income Benefit, a Social Security Bridge Payment, and a separation payment. The court ruled that generally, post-divorce early retirement incentives are not marital property and thus not subject to equitable distribution. However, the portion of the package that specifically enhances pension benefits is considered marital property. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order in Tan-chick v Tanchick, which denied the former wife rights to the Social Security Bridge Payment and separation allowance, was affirmed. In Olivo v Olivo, the Appellate Division's order was modified to allow the former wife to share in the enhanced retirement income benefit, calculating her pro rata share against the pension actually obtained.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyPension BenefitsEarly Retirement IncentiveQualified Domestic Relations OrderDeferred CompensationPost-Divorce AssetsSpousal RightsEastman Kodak CompanyNY Court of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. W2022-00334-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2024

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Kathy Garbus v. Lazaro Ramos

This appeal concerns a father's challenge to a trial court's decision to impute income for retroactive child support. Lazaro Ramos, the father, argued that the juvenile court failed to consider factors from the Tennessee Child Support Guidelines when imputing his income. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, finding that the trial court did consider the relevant factors, especially after a remand for explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law. The father had failed to provide reliable income evidence, leading the court to impute income, and the case was affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.

child support disputeincome imputationretroactive child supportjuvenile court appealTennessee Child Support Guidelinesabuse of discretiondefault judgmentevidence reliabilityunderemploymentparental rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZANG & OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Paychex, Inc.

The plaintiff, Steven R. Zang, a trustee of Luxon & Zang PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, sued Paychex, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Zang alleged that Paychex violated ERISA by prioritizing its financial interests and engaging in prohibited transactions through "revenue-sharing" payments from mutual funds and a custodial bank account holding plan assets. Paychex sought to dismiss the complaint, citing statute of limitations and arguing it was not a fiduciary. The court found that claims related to bank revenue-sharing were time-barred due to disclosure, but claims concerning mutual fund revenue-sharing were not. However, the court ultimately granted Paychex's motion to dismiss, concluding that Paychex did not hold fiduciary status with respect to the Plan, which was essential for all of the plaintiff's ERISA claims.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsRevenue Sharing401(k) PlanPlan AssetsDiscretionary AuthorityProhibited Transactions
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 1,425 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