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
Aug 17, 1982

McCormic v. Smith

This case concerns a dispute between tenants and landlords, initiated by the tenants under common law and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A jury trial resulted in a judgment favoring tenants for damages and attorneys' fees, although the fee amount was not set. The trial judge subsequently set the attorneys' fees post-trial, prompting the landlords to appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, ruling that a motion for a new trial was required. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not mandate a new trial motion for errors committed by the trial judge after a jury verdict and not directly involving the jury's actions or findings.

Attorneys' feesAppellate procedureMotion for new trialPost-trial proceedingsJury trialLandlord-tenant disputeUniform Residential Landlord and Tenant ActWaiver of issuesRule 3(e) T.R.A.P.Rule 59 T.R.C.P.
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Colthurst

This case involves an appeal stemming from a landlord-tenant dispute between William and Yuko Colthurst (landlords) and Tim and Stephanie Williams (tenants). The landlords sued the tenants for unpaid rent and property damage after the tenants vacated their leased home early following a sexual assault on Mrs. Williams. The tenants counterclaimed for wrongful withholding of their security deposit and premises liability, alleging the landlords failed to provide proper security devices. The trial court ruled largely in favor of the landlords, granting partial summary judgment on unpaid rent, a directed verdict on premises liability, and jury findings on property damage and security deposit claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the award of attorney's fees to the landlords and sanctions against the tenants' counsel.

Landlord-TenantLease DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictAttorney Fees
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, A/S/O Mirsan, L.P., D/B/A Sienna Ridge Apartments v. Carmen A. White

This dissenting opinion by Justice Boyd, joined by Justices Willett, Lehrmann, and Devine, disputes the majority's allocation of the burden of proof in a case involving fire damage to a tenant's apartment. The central issue is whether the tenant, Carmen White, or the landlord/insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, bears the burden of proving the cause of the fire under the Texas Property Code. The dissent argues that the landlord has an unwaivable duty to repair unless the tenant caused the damage, and the burden to prove this exception (that the tenant caused the fire) rests with the landlord. The dissent contends that the lease provision requiring the tenant to pay for damages not caused by the landlord's negligence is unenforceable under the Property Code, which prohibits landlords from avoiding their duty to repair conditions affecting health and safety unless the tenant caused them. Since the landlord failed to secure a jury finding that White caused the fire, the dissent believes the court of appeals' decision, which favored the tenant, should have been affirmed.

burden of prooftenant liabilitylandlord dutiesproperty coderesidential leasefire damagecontract enforceabilityaffirmative defensestatutory exceptionsubrogation rights
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sankar v. City of New York

This case involves a landlord (plaintiff) who faced two arrests in 2006 based on allegedly false police reports filed by her tenant, Karlene White, stemming from a landlord-tenant dispute. The plaintiff subsequently sued White, several police officers, an assistant district attorney, and the City of New York for federal and state law claims including false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Claims for false arrest against Officers Ostrowski and Galli, malicious prosecution against Officer Ostrowski, and battery against Ostrowski and Galli (all in their individual capacities) survived summary judgment. Additionally, state law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery against the City of New York under respondeat superior liability were also denied summary judgment. All other claims, including those related to a November arrest, claims against other named defendants, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were dismissed.

false arrestmalicious prosecutioncivil rightspolice misconductprobable causequalified immunitymunicipal liabilityrespondeat superiorbatterylandlord-tenant dispute
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamoun v. Shough

This case involves a landlord/tenant dispute between appellant Brigitte Shamoun (Tenant) and appellee Lisa R. Shough (Landlord). The trial court entered judgment for the Landlord following a jury trial, finding the Tenant breached the lease and acted in bad faith by withholding rent. The Tenant appealed, raising issues concerning conflicting jury answers and the sufficiency of evidence, while the Landlord filed a cross-issue regarding the amount of attorney's fees. The appellate court overruled both the Tenant's issues and the Landlord's cross-issue. It affirmed the trial court's judgment but modified the damages awarded to the Landlord from $11,400 to $13,400 due to a calculation error related to the Texas Property Code statutory remedies.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeBreach of ContractSecurity DepositTexas Property CodeBad FaithStatutory ClaimsJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReviewDamages CalculationAttorney's Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mackey v. 1525 Dorchester Co.

The plaintiff, a rent-stabilized tenant, sought an injunction compelling her landlord, Mr. Liefer and 1525 Dorchester Co., to complete Section 8 subsidy paperwork and damages under Real Property Law §§ 223-b and 230. The landlord allegedly refused to sign the voucher in retaliation for the tenant's complaints to HPD and participation in tenant organizing activities. While the court dismissed the claim under RPL § 223-b (2) due to a lack of substantial alteration of tenancy terms, it found a valid cause of action under RPL § 230, which prohibits landlords from interfering with tenant organizing or diminishing tenant rights and privileges. The court rejected the landlord's arguments regarding non-participation in Section 8 and preemption of state law, noting that the refusal could harass the tenant and interfere with her rights. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action was denied, allowing the case to proceed given factual disputes and supporting affidavits.

Tenant RightsLandlord RetaliationSection 8 SubsidyReal Property LawMotion to DismissInjunctionHarassmentTenant OrganizingVoucher RefusalCPLR 3211
References
6
Case No. 651884/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2017

1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

The case concerns a dispute between 1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC (Landlord) and McDonald's Corporation (Tenant) regarding the fair market value (FMV) rent under a commercial lease. The core issue involved the interpretation of the "highest and best use of the demised premises" clause, which was initially ruled upon by the court in Landlord's favor before arbitration. Subsequently, Tenant allegedly committed misconduct during arbitration by relitigating this court-decided issue and submitting an expert opinion discrediting the court's ruling. Landlord moved to vacate the arbitration award, citing Tenant's misconduct. The court denied Landlord's motion and granted Tenant's cross-motion to confirm the award, determining that Landlord failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the arbitrators' decision.

ArbitrationLease DisputeFair Market ValueHighest and Best UseMisconductVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardJudicial ReviewCPLR 7511Contract Interpretation
References
24
Case No. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Stephanie Williams A/K/A Stephanie Scholler and Tim Williams v. William Colthurst, Yuko Colthurst, WGW Properties, Inc. D/B/A Century 21 Advantage, Tom DeWitt, Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, and Felix Kauffman

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 20027
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2020

159 W. 23rd LLC v. Spa Ciel De NY Corp.

The landlord, 159 West 23rd LLC, appealed a prior order concerning a commercial lease dispute with tenant Spa Ciel De NY Corp. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting the landlord summary judgment of possession and dismissing the tenant's affirmative defenses. The court found that the tenant breached the insurance coverage requirements of the lease by failing to maintain an umbrella policy and other required insurances. Arguments from the tenant regarding waiver and alleged statements by a former owner were deemed unavailing and inadmissible. The court concluded that the landlord had valid grounds for terminating the commercial lease due to the tenant's incurable insurance defaults and acted promptly in addressing the inadequate coverage.

Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentInsurance BreachLandlord-Tenant LawLease AgreementAppellate TermNew York LawContract LawAffirmative DefensesUse and Occupancy
References
16
Case No. 01-01-00618-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2002

Pala, Suresh v. Michael Maxim

This landlord-tenant dispute involves Suresh Pala (landlord) and Michael Maxim (tenant) regarding the early termination of a residential lease. Pala appealed a judgment where both parties received no damages but were each ordered to pay $4,000 in attorney's fees. The landlord challenged the trial court's findings that he materially breached the lease by failing to replace countertops, that this was not a condition precedent, and that the tenant did not act in bad faith by applying her security deposit to rent. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed these issues, including the awards of attorney's fees. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeLease AgreementBreach of ContractEarly Lease TerminationSecurity DepositAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachBad FaithAppellate ReviewTexas Property Code
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 4,938 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