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. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLuca v. DeLuca

The case addresses whether payments from the New York City Police Department Police Superior Officers’ Variable Supplements Fund (VSF) are marital assets subject to equitable distribution in a divorce action. The plaintiff husband, a retired NYPD detective, was entitled to VSF benefits. The Supreme Court initially deemed these benefits, along with pension benefits and an annuity, as marital assets subject to 50% distribution to the defendant wife. The Appellate Division disagreed, concluding that VSF benefits are not marital assets. The court reasoned that VSF payments, explicitly declared by the Legislature as not constituting a pension or retirement fund, do not accrue incrementally and are not deferred compensation, thus abrogating legislative intent. The judgment was modified, awarding the plaintiff his VSF benefits as separate property and adjusting the distribution of other marital assets.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetsPolice PensionVariable Supplements FundNYPD BenefitsDivorce LawStatutory InterpretationDeferred CompensationAppellate ReviewSpousal Rights
References
13
Case No. M2020-00703-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Christina Lynn McCartney v. Lester Dale McCartney

This is an appeal in a divorce case. The Husband/Appellant appealed the trial court's pre-trial procedural rulings, the classification of certain assets as marital property, and the equitable division of the marital estate. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error. Key issues included the classification of Husband's retirement funds, the modular home, disability benefits, a John Deere tractor, and a StarCraft boat, as well as allegations of the Wife's dissipation of marital assets. The court upheld the trial court's application of statutory factors for property division.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAsset DivisionRetirement FundsDisability BenefitsProperty ClassificationAppellate ReviewTennesseeFamily Law
References
37
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. W2012-02279-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2014

William Paul Luttrell v. Beverly Parker Luttrell

This case involves a divorce action between William Paul Luttrell (Husband) and Beverly Parker Luttrell (Wife). Husband appealed the trial court's judgment which awarded Wife an an absolute divorce, classified and distributed marital property, and ordered Husband to pay child support. Key issues on appeal included the classification and valuation of assets, particularly Wife's substantial separate trust assets, equitable distribution of marital property, child support calculations, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the classification of Wife's trust assets as separate property, the equitable division of marital assets which favored Husband due to Wife's significant separate wealth, and the imputation of income to Husband for child support purposes due to willful underemployment. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of attorney's fees to both parties.

DivorceMarital PropertySeparate PropertyChild SupportEquitable DistributionUnderemploymentAlimony in SolidoAttorney's FeesTrust AssetsProperty Valuation
References
21
Case No. 02A01-9709-CV-00231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Sarah Wilkerson v. Robert Wilkerson

This is a divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the distribution of marital property. The trial court awarded the husband $25,000, representing 38.5% of the marital home's value, and the remainder of the marital property to the wife as alimony in solido, having considered the husband's fault. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in considering fault in the division of marital property and in failing to include all marital assets, such as both parties' automobiles and the husband's pension, in the marital estate. The court also determined that the presumption of equal marital property distribution was not overcome. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions for an equal, 50/50, division of marital property before addressing the issue of alimony.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewFault in DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationAutomobile ClassificationSpousal SupportTennessee Family Law
References
12
Case No. W2008-02041-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2009

Brenda Brewer v. Kenny Brewer, Sr.

This divorce case involves an appeal by the Husband concerning the classification and division of marital property, as well as an alimony award. Husband argued that Wife's personal injury settlement, SSI benefits, and car insurance proceeds should have been included as marital assets subject to equitable distribution. He also sought a reduction in Wife's share of the marital home and challenged the trial court's order for rehabilitative and in futuro alimony. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding property classification, equitable division, and spousal support. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the property division and the alimony award to the Wife.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DivisionAlimonyPersonal InjurySSI BenefitsSeparate PropertySpousal SupportProperty ClassificationAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2002

Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County concerning a divorce decree. James Franklin Hopkins challenged the Trial Court's award of alimony to Sherry Mae Hopkins and the order for marital debts to be paid from the sale of the marital residence. He also asserted Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part, reversing the alimony in futuro award and granting rehabilitative alimony for four years. The appellate court upheld the division of marital debt but found Ms. Hopkins violated a statutory injunction by selling a marital asset without consent, granting Mr. Hopkins a credit.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyDebt DivisionSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyMarital AssetsAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageFamily Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,015 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