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. E2001-02017-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Karen Mountjoy v. City of Chattanooga

Karen Mountjoy sued the City of Chattanooga for retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act after she was demoted following a sexual harassment complaint against her supervisor, John Henderson. The jury found in favor of Mountjoy on the retaliation claim, awarding her $61,179 for economic loss, and the trial court also awarded attorney fees and discretionary costs. The City appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for retaliation, excessive jury verdict, and abuse of discretion in awarding fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding material evidence supported the jury's verdict on retaliation and damages, and that the City failed to prove an abuse of discretion regarding attorney fees and costs.

RetaliationSexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActJury VerdictEconomic LossAttorney FeesDiscretionary CostsMitigation of DamagesAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 03-96-00601-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1997

Imelda Martinez v. Rodney Bouffard and Karen Chadwell

Imelda Martinez appealed a trial-court judgment dismissing her employment dispute case. Martinez, an at-will employee, was fired from her position as vice-president of fraud investigations at the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund by her supervisors, Rodney Bouffard and Karen Chadwell. She sued her supervisors for tortious interference with her business relations, alleging they acted with malice despite having the authority to fire her. The trial court sustained special exceptions, and after Martinez filed an amended pleading stating the same claim, the case was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, refusing to extend the tortious interference cause of action to the firing of an at-will employee under these circumstances, reiterating the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at Will DoctrineTortious Interference with ContractSupervisor ImmunityAt-Will TerminationJudicial DismissalTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate AffirmationMalicious IntentBusiness Relationship InterferenceEmployee Rights
References
9
Case No. M2023-00028-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2024

Heritage Construction Group, LLC v. Karen Vest

Heritage Construction Group, LLC, a homebuilder, appealed a chancery court decision that denied its motion to modify or vacate an arbitration award and instead granted attorney's fees to homeowner Karen Vest. The homebuilder argued the arbitrator exceeded his powers by not awarding attorney's fees and contractual penalties. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's judgment. It found that the arbitrator acted within his powers, plausibly concluding no single party prevailed, thus justifying the denial of attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the homebuilder had waived the contractual penalty for occupancy, despite the contract's written waiver clause. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to Ms. Vest for successfully defending against Heritage's motion.

ArbitrationContract DisputeAttorney FeesWaiverPrevailing PartyHome ConstructionChancery CourtCourt of AppealsTennessee LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
13
Case No. 12-09-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2010

Yakov Elmakiss v. Karen G. Hughes, Esq.

Yakov Elmakiss appealed the trial court's summary judgment in a lawsuit he brought against Karen G. Hughes. Elmakiss sued Hughes for her conduct while representing his ex-wife in their divorce action. Hughes moved for traditional summary judgment, asserting that no cause of action existed for her conduct on behalf of an adverse party. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized the common law rule that an attorney owes a duty of care only to her client, not to third parties, thereby limiting liability. It also rejected Elmakiss's claim under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 110.003, as Hughes, a private attorney, did not qualify as a government agency.

Summary JudgmentAttorney LiabilityLegal MalpracticePrivityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewProfessional ResponsibilityThird-Party ClaimsAttorney-Client Relationship
References
26
Case No. 9419-13267 / 01-A-01-9511-JV-00508
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1996

Michael Scott Evans v. Karen Marie Bisson Steeman - Dissenting

Michael Scott Evans seeks to establish paternity and legitimize Jacob Ryan Steelman, a child born to Karen Marie Bisson Steelman while she was married to another man. Despite initial acknowledgment, Ms. Steelman later returned to her husband, listing him as the father. Evans's petition for legitimation was dismissed without blood tests, based on a prior court's interpretation of Tennessee's legitimation statutes regarding children 'born in lawful wedlock.' This dissenting opinion argues that the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal is based on an erroneous and outdated judicial interpretation. The dissent contends that the statute should be reinterpreted in light of modern understanding of parental rights and reliable paternity testing, asserting that a biological father who takes prompt action should have standing to pursue legitimation.

PaternityLegitimationParental RightsMarital PresumptionStare DecisisStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessEqual ProtectionBiological FatherChild Support
References
102
Case No. 03-95-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1996

J. H. Schlueter and Richard Stephen Schlueter v. Karen Sue Schlueter

This is an appeal from a divorce action. Richard Schlueter and J. H. Schlueter (Hudson) appealed a judgment against them for fraud and conspiracy against Karen Sue Schlueter and the community estate. The trial court had awarded damages for fraud related to the transfer of an emu business interest and handling of Richard's IBM incentive bonus, along with punitive damages. Appellants challenged the admission of 'other acts' evidence, the award of exemplary damages, and the disproportionate division of property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings, upholding the damages, and confirming the property division.

DivorceFraudConspiracyCommunity PropertyInterspousal ImmunityExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
29
Case No. 2-06-107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2007

Mark Haire and Karen Haire v. Nathan Watson Company and Fugro South, Inc.

Mark and Karen Haire (Haires) sued Nathan Watson Company (NWC), the subdivision developer, and Fugro South, Inc. (Fugro), a geotechnical engineering firm, for alleged negligence and breach of implied warranties under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) due to severe foundation issues in their home. The trial court granted summary judgment to both NWC and Fugro. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Fugro but reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of NWC. The court found that the "as is" provision in the Haires' home purchase contract did not apply to NWC or Fugro because they were not parties to the contract. However, the claims against Fugro were upheld due to the Haires' failure to challenge the "no-duty" argument for negligence and their pre-purchase knowledge barring the implied warranty claim.

Summary JudgmentAs Is ClauseImplied WarrantyNegligenceStandingCollateral EstoppelReal Estate LawProperty DamageFoundation IssuesDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
25
Case No. 03-24-00233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Karen N. Perl, D.O. v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Appellant Karen N. Perl, D.O., filed an unopposed motion to dismiss her appeal with the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin. The court reviewed the motion and, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), granted the request. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The decision was rendered by Chief Justice Darlene Byrne, with Justices Smith and Theofanis concurring, and was filed on May 2, 2024.

AppealMotion to DismissTexas Court of AppealsTravis CountyUnopposed MotionCivil ProcedureAppellate RulesDismissalLegal ProceedingsCourt Decision
References
1
Case No. 03-00-00369-CV, 03-00-00640-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2001

Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services v. Karen Rodriguez

This case consolidates two interlocutory appeals concerning sovereign immunity waivers for mental health facilities. Central Counties Center for Mental Health & Mental Retardation Services and Austin State Hospital appealed the denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. Karen Rodriguez sued the Center for personal injuries and sexual exploitation by an employee. Debbie Fiske and Raymond Rodriguez sued the Hospital for damages and on behalf of their son, Christopher Roy Rodriguez, who committed suicide while a patient. The appeals court reviewed the issue de novo, determining whether the Texas Health and Safety Code clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity. The court concluded that sections 321.003(a) and (b) of the Code explicitly waive both immunity from liability and immunity from suit for mental health facilities that violate patient rights. The court affirmed the district courts' orders denying the pleas to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMental Health FacilitiesPatient's Bill of RightsTexas Health and Safety CodeStatutory ConstructionInterlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionPersonal InjurySexual Exploitation
References
19
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Black + Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy v. Lou Ann Smith Jimmy Jackson Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith And Karen E. Graveley

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 172 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