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

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc. v. Dew

Paul Dew fell to his death through a floor opening on an offshore drilling rig under construction. His family sued the rig owner, designer, and the derrick erector, Crown Derrick Erectors. A jury found negligence by all parties, including Paul Dew. Crown Derrick appealed, arguing no legal duty, no breach of duty, lack of proximate cause, and error in refusing a jury instruction on new and independent cause. The appellate court concluded that Crown Derrick owed a duty of care, and there was legally sufficient evidence of breach and proximate cause for the jury's finding. However, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by refusing to submit a jury instruction on new and independent cause, which was a critical and disputed issue for the jury's determination of proximate cause.

Offshore drilling rig accidentNegligencePremises liabilityProximate causeNew and independent causeJury instruction errorAppellate reviewDuty of careBreach of dutyWorkplace safety
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Liberty National Life Insurance

Douglas A. Turner, an employee of Liberty Mutual Life Insurance Company, sued the company after he was allegedly denied a bonus for serving on grand jury duty in Rutherford County, Tennessee. He claimed violations of the Tennessee Jury Duty Statute, which prohibits discrimination against employees for jury service, and a common-law claim for retaliation. His wife, Diane Turner, also filed a derivative loss of consortium claim. The defendant, Liberty Mutual, filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The court declined to consider the motion as one for summary judgment. It granted the motion to dismiss for Mr. Turner's common-law retaliation claim, finding that Tennessee law requires an actual discharge for such a claim, which did not occur here. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Mr. Turner's claims under the Tennessee Jury Duty Statute and his wife's loss of consortium claim, stating that the statute's anti-discrimination provisions are broad enough to cover the alleged actions.

Jury Duty StatuteRetaliatory DischargeLoss of ConsortiumEmployment DiscriminationBonus PayTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentGrand Jury Service
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

May v. Scott

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs Max May and Billy Thompson and Defendant Lawrence Scott concerning Scott's acquisition of Memphis Equipment Company (MEC) and subsequent financial misconduct. Scott, then President of MEC, orchestrated the purchase of MEC stock from its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (MEC ESOP) in 1999 without the knowledge or approval of other board members, leading to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA violations. The Court had previously granted partial summary judgment against Scott for breaching fiduciary duties under Tennessee law and for failing to disclose the stock purchase transaction under ERISA. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found Scott liable for wrongful conversion of MEC funds for personal use, awarding $172,203.66 in damages. Additionally, for ERISA violations related to the non-disclosure, Scott was found personally liable to restore $455,720.78 to the MEC ESOP, and his interest in the ESOP was forfeited. The Court also granted injunctive relief against Scott and awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanCorporate GovernanceFraudulent ConcealmentConversionShareholder Derivative ActionInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunnagan v. Watson

This case involves an appeal between James R. Dunnagan and Joseph Earl Watson, two members of the limited partnership “Parker County’s Squaw Creek Downs, L.P.” The dispute arose from disagreements after the partnership failed to secure a horse racetrack license. Watson initially sued Dunnagan for breach of fiduciary duties and sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, while Dunnagan filed a cross-petition against Watson for breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found Watson breached his fiduciary duties, causing damages of $459,645.69 to the limited partnership, and also found that Dunnagan's actions made it impracticable for the limited partnership to continue, leading to its dissolution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings regarding Watson's breach of fiduciary duties and the judicial dissolution of the partnership.

Limited PartnershipFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJudicial DissolutionPartnership DisputeAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTrial Court JudgmentCorporate GovernanceEquitable Relief
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc. v. Stoutamire

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a lawsuit stemming from a construction site accident. Gregory Paul Stoutamire suffered fatal injuries, and Keith Schoolcraft sustained personal injuries. The appellees, Stoutamire's family and Schoolcraft, sued the general contractor, Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc., a subcontractor, and a crane operator for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found Lawson-Avila 40% negligent and awarded actual and exemplary damages. Lawson-Avila appealed, raising various points of error regarding legal duty, jury instructions, and the sufficiency and excessiveness of the gross negligence and exemplary damages findings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the finding of a legal duty owed by Lawson-Avila and confirming the gross negligence and exemplary damage awards as proportionate. The court also reinstated a jury award for Schoolcraft's future physical impairment.

Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetyNegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDuty of CareOSHA RegulationsFactual Sufficiency
References
40
Case No. 12-14-00302-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Corrine Augustine Nichols Hill Shearer v. David Shearer, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of John William Shearer, III

Corrine Augustine Nichols Hill Shearer appeals a judgment from the County Court at Law No. 2 in Gregg County. David Shearer, the Appellee, obtained a jury verdict on three causes of action against Corrine Shearer. The jury unanimously found that Corrine Shearer breached an informal fiduciary duty to David Shearer, awarding $35,000 in mental anguish damages and $10,000 in exemplary damages for malice. Additionally, the jury found that Corrine Shearer intentionally inflicted emotional distress on David Shearer by wrongfully disposing of John Shearer’s ashes, awarding $1,500 in mental anguish damages. Corrine Shearer appeals, arguing insufficient evidence for the existence of an informal fiduciary duty based on factors not included in the jury charge. David Shearer contends that Corrine Shearer failed to preserve error and that, even if preserved, the factors she relies on are not required or are sufficiently supported by evidence. David Shearer also argues that intentional infliction of emotional distress was the only available cause of action for the wrongful disposal of his father's ashes.

Fiduciary dutyEmotional distressWrongful disposal of remainsJury verdictAppellate reviewMedical decisionsLegal authorityConversion claimMarital dissolutionTexas law
References
57
Case No. NO. 2-04-381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2006

James R. Dunnagan and Parker County's Squaw Creek Downs, L.P. AND Joseph Earl Watson v. Joseph Earl Watson AND James R. Dunnagan and Parker County's Squaw Creek Downs, L.P.

This appeal involved a dispute between James R. Dunnagan and Joseph Earl Watson, two members of a limited partnership, who sued each other following disagreements over the partnership's activities. A jury found that Watson breached fiduciary duties and that the limited partnership could not practicably continue. Dunnagan appealed various trial court rulings, including the denial of his motion to strike Watson's amended petition and challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for judicial dissolution. Watson cross-appealed the jury's findings on his breach of fiduciary duties and the awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Partnership DisputeFiduciary Duty BreachJudicial DissolutionLimited Partnership LawAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceMotion for New TrialTexas Civil RulesBusiness LawContractual Disagreements
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 6,246 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