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. 07-02-0011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freeman

This case involves an appeal in a health care liability claim where the appellees, daughters of Wanda Granger, sued Cresthaven Nursing Residence, Cantex Healthcare Centers, and its general partners for negligence that allegedly resulted in Granger's injury and death. A jury awarded $9 million, which was subject to a statutory damage cap. The appellate court initially found prejudgment interest was not subject to the cap and suggested remittiturs for excessive damages. However, on rehearing, the court modified its decision, aligning with a new Supreme Court ruling that prejudgment interest is included in the damage cap, and affirmed the judgment with an adjusted cap of $1,413,008.13. Key issues included the application of the damage cap, prejudgment interest calculation, spoliation instruction, and expert witness qualification.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival ActionDamage CapPrejudgment InterestSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Witness QualificationExcessive Damages
References
39
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
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. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

This appeal concerns the effective date of a judgment against Kenneth E. Nelson, which dictates whether the judgment has expired. The Appellant argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and law of the case should prevent the Plaintiff from asserting that the judgment was entered in 2004. The trial court determined that the judgment had not expired, holding its effective date to be October 7, 2004, following a remand that resolved a statute of limitations issue and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the issues justiciable and within the chancery court's jurisdiction, and rejected the arguments based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and equitable estoppel.

Judgment ExpirationStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelLaw of the CaseFraudulent ConveyancePost-Judgment InterestSubject Matter JurisdictionDirect AppealAppellate ReviewDavidson County Chancery Court
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court judgment that reversed DPS's determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The appellee had been convicted in Massachusetts in 1993 for "indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years of age." DPS contended that the elements of the Massachusetts offense were "substantially similar" to Texas's sexual assault or indecency with a child, thus mandating registration. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts crime are not "substantially similar" to the Texas offenses, citing significant differences in the nature of sexual conduct, protected interests, seriousness, and potential punishments. The court also addressed the exclusion of a police report by the trial court.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Substantially Similar ElementsMassachusetts LawTexas Penal CodeSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryCriminal AttemptStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tsoucalas v. Tsoucalas

This case concerns a divorce proceeding addressing child support, equitable distribution of the marital residence, and child custody. The court upheld a child support award of $110 per week, determining the defendant's earning potential as a cook-manager exceeded his reported income. The plaintiff was awarded half the proceeds from the marital residence sale, acknowledging her 11 years of unpaid work in the defendant's family business. Sole custody of their son, who has a seizure disorder, was granted to the plaintiff, citing the defendant's exclusive focus on business and limited engagement in family activities.

Child SupportEquitable DistributionChild CustodyEarning PotentialMarital ResidenceUnpaid LaborParental GuidanceVisitation RightsFamily BusinessSeizure Disorder
References
5
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dachille v. Dachille

This matrimonial action addresses motions for temporary maintenance, counsel fees, and other financial relief. The plaintiff sought temporary maintenance, contribution to a Chapter 13 plan note, and counsel fees. The defendant cross-moved for exclusive use of the marital residence, reimbursement for medical insurance, and interim attorney's fees. The court denied the plaintiff's applications for temporary maintenance and contribution, citing income parity and lack of demonstrated need. Exclusive use and occupancy was also denied to the defendant. While both parties' requests for interim counsel fees were denied, the defendant's request for medical insurance reimbursement was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the marital residence mortgage.

Matrimonial LawTemporary MaintenanceSpousal SupportMarital ResidenceChapter 13 BankruptcyVeterans' Disability BenefitsIncome CalculationEquitable DistributionCounsel FeesExclusive Occupancy
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 916 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