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

Mitchell v. John Wiesner, Inc.

Vicki Mitchell filed a workers' compensation claim after an injury and was subsequently terminated by her employer, John Wiesner, Inc. She sued for retaliatory discharge, alleging she was fired for filing the claim. Wiesner, Inc. moved for summary judgment, introducing the "after-acquired evidence" defense, citing Mitchell's alleged misrepresentation about her high school diploma on her job application. Mitchell opposed, questioning the defense's validity and arguing a factual dispute existed. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wiesner, but the appellate court reversed, declining to adopt the after-acquired evidence defense for Anti-Retaliation Law claims in Texas and remanding the case.

Retaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployment LawTexas LawAppellate ReviewFalse ApplicationHigh School DiplomaProbatory Period
References
9
Case No. M2011-00410-SC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2012

Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities - Dissent

In the Supreme Court of Tennessee case, Troy Mitchell v. Fayetteville Public Utilities, Justice Janice M. Holder issued a dissenting opinion on May 8, 2012, regarding a workers' compensation claim. The majority adopted Larson's four-element test, concluding that Mr. Mitchell's removal of his gloves constituted a willful failure to comply with safety rules, thereby denying him benefits. Justice Holder argued that willful misconduct necessitates more than negligence or recklessness, stressing that Mitchell believed he was in a safe zone at the time of the incident. She contended that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's finding that Mitchell's conduct was not willful, and expressed concern that the majority's test encourages the use of the willful misconduct defense in cases of mere negligence or bad judgment.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety RulesEmployee NegligenceEmployer DefensesTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting OpinionLarson's TestWorkplace SafetyInjury Compensation
References
7
Case No. 11-03-00020-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2004

Leroy Phillip Mitchell v. Nations Credit Financial Services Corporation

Leroy Phillip Mitchell appealed a default judgment in favor of Nations Credit Financial Services Corporation, which granted possession of real property to Nations Credit after a foreclosure sale. Mitchell's appeal contested the trial court's refusal to grant his motion for new trial, arguing his failure to appear was not intentional and he had a meritorious defense. The appellate court applied the Craddock test, which requires demonstrating the failure to answer was unintentional, a meritorious defense exists, and a new trial would not cause delay. The court found Mitchell failed to explain why he didn't file an answer or request a continuance, thus not satisfying the first Craddock element. Furthermore, the court determined Mitchell's asserted equitable claim of ownership was not a defense against Nations Credit's right to possession, failing the second Craddock element. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Default judgmentForcible entry and detainerMotion for new trialCraddock testAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewRight to possessionReal propertyForeclosureTexas civil procedure
References
4
Case No. No. 44
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

The People v. Marc Mitchell

Marc Mitchell, the defendant, appealed his conviction for fraudulent accosting, arguing that the term 'accost' requires a physical, aggressive approach to a specific individual. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that dictionaries from the statute's enactment defined 'accost' as 'to approach,' 'speak to first,' or 'address.' The Court found the complaint sufficient, as Mitchell blocked a Manhattan sidewalk with milk crates, requiring pedestrians to walk around him, and asked passing pedestrians to 'Help the homeless,' while allegedly misrepresenting where donations would go. The Court concluded that his actions, including blocking the sidewalk and calling out, constituted accosting. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad, potentially criminalizing protected speech, and that 'accost' implies a more assertive, targeted contact, which was not present in Mitchell's actions. The Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

fraudulent accostingstatutory interpretationNew York Court of Appealsmisdemeanor complaintfacial sufficiencyactus reusmens reaconfidence gamestreet swindlelegislative intent
References
58
Case No. 662,120[C]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2014

Mitchell, Maurice

Maurice Mitchell, a pro-se applicant, writes to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the 179th Criminal District Court clerk, Chris Daniel, regarding his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, cause number 662,120[C]. He expresses concern that four crucial documents he submitted to the trial court in November 2014 (Memorandum of Law, Proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusion of Law, Non-Superseding Application, and Memorandum of Law for Amended Application) have not been acknowledged or forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Mitchell details impediments he faces as an indigent inmate at TDCJ, I-D, including being denied typing paper and confiscated mailing envelopes, which hinder his ability to serve copies and present his claims. He also mentions being in close custody due to overturned false disciplinary cases and alleged assault by a sergeant. He requests a response by January 05, 2014, to confirm document forwarding, otherwise he will resubmit them himself.

Habeas CorpusInmate RightsPrison ConditionsLegal AccessDocument FilingAppeals ProcessTexas Criminal AppealsPro SeDisciplinary ActionsRetaliation
References
1
Case No. 533132
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Mitchell

Claimant Frederick Mitchell, a certified welder, sustained work-related injuries in two incidents in 2003 and 2004, leading to established workers' compensation claims. Initially found to be permanently partially disabled, Mitchell sought reclassification as permanently totally disabled. However, he was later disqualified from receiving benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to misrepresentations about his condition, based on surveillance video evidence. Years later, Mitchell applied to the Workers' Compensation Board to rehear or reopen his claims, citing newly discovered evidence and the interest of justice. The Board denied his application, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityMisrepresentation of ConditionSurveillance Video EvidenceRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimsAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01365 [203 AD3d 1288]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

Matter of Mitchell v. Wastequip, Inc.

Claimant Frederick Mitchell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application to rehear or reopen his workers' compensation claims. Mitchell was previously found permanently disqualified from receiving benefits due to misrepresentations about his condition, supported by surveillance video. He sought to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence and in the interest of justice, over seven years after the initial disqualification. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that Mitchell failed to provide valid newly discovered evidence supported by affidavits and offered no compelling reason for the significant delay in his application. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityMisrepresentationSurveillance VideoRehearingReopeningAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. NO. 01-87-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1987

Valero Transmission Company v. Mitchell Energy Corporation

This case involves an appeal by Valero Transmission Company against a temporary injunction ordering it to purchase specific quantities of natural gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation, pursuant to an existing gas purchase agreement. The trial court found Valero in breach, leading to gas drainage from Mitchell's leases and imminent lease loss. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, rejecting Valero's arguments regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, illegality based on market demand, the applicability of a force majeure clause, and Mitchell's alleged 'unclean hands.' The court concluded that the injunction served to preserve the status quo and did not require Valero to violate Texas law or Railroad Commission regulations.

Gas purchase contractTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMarket demandForce majeureDrainageLease preservationTexas Railroad CommissionSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate review
References
18
Case No. W2001-01683-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2002

Patsy Mitchell v. Dr. James Ensor

Patsy Mitchell and her husband Steve Mitchell, appellants, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. James Ensor, M.D., and Memphis Internal Medicine, P.L.L.C., appellees. The plaintiffs alleged Dr. Ensor negligently administered a Depo-Testosterone injection to Mrs. Mitchell for diminished libido without informed consent, resulting in virilizing side effects, including clitoral enlargement. The Circuit Court for Shelby County entered judgment on a jury verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on lack of informed consent and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions or the admission of expert testimony on alternate causes, and remanded the case.

Medical MalpracticeInformed ConsentTestosterone InjectionDepo-TestosteroneClitoral EnlargementVirilizationHormone Replacement TherapyJury InstructionsExpert Witness TestimonyMedical Causation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,700 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