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. E2010-00492-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2010

Clarence E. Miller v. Marian N. Miller

Husband Clarence E. Miller filed for divorce against Wife Marian N. Miller, alleging inappropriate marital conduct. Wife counter-claimed, also alleging inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted a divorce to Husband, divided marital property, and awarded Wife alimony. Wife appealed the trial court's decisions, challenging the denial of her recusal motion, the divorce award, the property division, and the alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety, finding no abuse of discretion.

Divorce LawMarital Property DivisionAlimonySpousal SupportAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRecusal MotionInappropriate Marital ConductSeparate PropertyEquitable Distribution
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2011

K.B.J. v. T.J.

This is a contested divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision concerning primary residential parent, allocation of marital debt, and denial of spousal support. The trial court had found the Husband guilty of inappropriate marital conduct but made him the primary residential parent and denied spousal support to the Wife, while allocating significant marital debt to her. The appellate court reversed the decision on primary residential parent status and parenting schedule, designating the Wife as the primary residential parent with final decision-making authority. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the allocation of marital debt to the Wife and the denial of spousal support, citing the Husband's financial burden and the Wife's earning capacity. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine child support based on the modified parenting schedule.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital DebtSpousal SupportAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionPrimary Residential ParentParenting TimeFinancial Responsibility
References
15
Case No. M2000-00547-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2001

Mary Louise Goodman Case v. Billy Ray Case

This is a divorce case involving Mary Louise Goodman Case (Wife) and Billy Ray Case (Husband) after 25 years of marriage. The trial court granted a divorce to the Wife on grounds of the Husband's inappropriate marital conduct, divided marital property, but failed to determine the value of the Wife's pension plan, and did not award spousal support to the Husband. The Husband appealed, arguing against the divorce, the property division, and the lack of alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce and the decision not to award alimony but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to classify, value, and equitably divide the Wife's pension plan as marital property.

DivorceMarital PropertyPension DivisionSpousal SupportAlimonyInappropriate Marital ConductDisability BenefitsEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility
References
6
Case No. W2001-02931-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2003

Brenda Hicks v. John E. Hicks

The case of Brenda Hicks v. John E. Hicks is a divorce action initiated by the wife after eight months of marriage. The trial court initially granted Brenda Hicks a divorce on grounds of adultery and awarded her $10,000 as alimony in solido and a division of the marital estate. John E. Hicks appealed this decision, challenging both the adultery finding and the monetary award. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Jackson affirmed the divorce but modified the grounds to inappropriate marital conduct, finding insufficient evidence for adultery. Furthermore, the appellate court reduced the monetary award to $2,000, determining that pre-marital expenses were not a proper basis for reimbursement.

DivorceMarital ConductAlimony in SolidoMarital EstateProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewCircumstantial EvidencePre-marital ExpensesSpousal SupportFinancial Award
References
6
Case No. E2012-01726-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2013

Sharon Clayman Sitz v. William Grant Sitz

Sharon Clayman Sitz (Wife) sued William Grant Sitz (Husband) for divorce after 16 years of marriage. The trial court awarded Wife a divorce based on inappropriate marital conduct, adopted her parenting plan, and imputed income to Husband due to voluntary underemployment for child support calculation. Husband appealed, challenging the parenting plan, underemployment finding, imputed income calculation, grounds for divorce, marital asset division, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, with a modification regarding the simultaneous transfer of marital property and an equalizing payment. Costs on appeal were taxed to Husband, and the case was remanded for enforcement.

DivorceChild CustodyChild SupportSpousal ConductVoluntary UnderemploymentProperty DivisionAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewParenting PlanDomestic Relations
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnone v. Arnone

The parties married in 1980 and divorced after a prolonged action initiated in 1997. The Supreme Court's initial judgment distributed marital property, including the marital residence to the defendant, and allowed the plaintiff to retain his state pension. Defendant appealed the equitable distribution, challenging the classification of certain bank accounts as separate property and the denial of a share in the plaintiff's state pension. The appellate court upheld the separate property designations but found that the defendant was entitled to a 50% share of the plaintiff's state pension, modifying the judgment accordingly. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding maintenance and counsel fees, denying further awards to the defendant.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertyDivorce ProceedingsSpousal Pension RightsAppellate ReviewSeparate PropertyMaintenance AwardsCounsel FeesDisability BenefitsProperty Valuation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
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. M2003-02448-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Gordon E. Morrow, Jr. v. Tammy Lynn (Pugh) Morrow

The husband filed for divorce after a marriage of over twenty-three years. The trial court granted the divorce to the wife on the ground of the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct and divided the marital property equally between the parties. Because of the property division, and because the wife had more formal education than the husband, the court decided that she was not entitled to any alimony. The wife appealed. We modify the trial court’s decree to eliminate the payment to the husband ordered as part of the property division. Because this modification serves the goal of self-sufficiency for the economically disadvantaged spouse, we affirm the denial of alimony. We also affirm the award of attorney’s fees.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimonySpousal SupportEquitable DistributionAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageRehabilitative AlimonyChild Support
References
34
Case No. M2002-01204-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2003

Hazel Ann Edde v. Gladys Dalton Edde

Hazel Ann Edde (Wife) filed for divorce from Gladys Dalton Edde (Husband) after a thirty-six year marriage, citing irreconcilable differences, inappropriate marital conduct, and adultery. The trial court granted the divorce to the Wife, divided marital property, and awarded her $425 per month in alimony in futuro. Husband appealed the alimony award, arguing that Wife had no need for it and he lacked the ability to pay. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding Wife's economic disadvantage, the infeasibility of her rehabilitation, and Husband's ability to provide support. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportMarital Property DivisionAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageAbility to PayInappropriate Marital ConductAdulteryTrial Court Discretion
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,181 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