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

Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, III

Harold W. Duke, III (Father) filed a petition seeking recusal of the trial judge in a post-divorce action, citing the judge's former law partner briefly representing Kathryn A. Duke (Mother) and the judge's prior representation of Father's paramour. The trial court denied the recusal motion. Father then filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The appellate court reviewed the petition de novo and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found no evidence that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned, noting that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient for recusal and that the alleged prior associations were too limited or distant in time to warrant disqualification.

Recusal MotionJudicial ImpartialityConflict of InterestPost-Divorce ActionAppellate ReviewDe Novo StandardTennessee Supreme Court Rule 10BJudicial Conduct RulesWaiver of AppealTimeliness of Motion
References
12
Case No. ADJ1775896 (RDG 0101688), ADJ2010679 (RDG 0104042)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

RICHARD SEILER vs. CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Richard Seiler, petitioned to recuse the judge, alleging prejudice and improper rulings on evidence and medical treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the applicant's filings and the judge's report. The WCAB denied the disqualification petition, finding no evidence of bias. The applicant will have the opportunity to raise these issues at trial and, if necessary, file a petition for reconsideration.

Recusal petitionJudge JonesLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Chiropractic QMEExclusion of evidencePrescribing physicianHormone replacementMandatory settlement conferencePetition for reconsideration
References
0
Case No. 909 S.W.2d 874
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1995

Rogers v. Bradley

This legal opinion concerns a motion to recuse several Texas Supreme Court justices due to concerns about their impartiality. The allegations stem from a 1992 political action committee (TEX-PAC) video, 'Court Wars III,' which supported certain judicial candidates and linked their election to the outcome of a medical malpractice case involving Dr. Brian Bernard Bradley. Justice Gammage recused himself, arguing that the video created a reasonable question of impartiality. However, Justice Enoch, writing the response, disagreed with Gammage's reasoning, asserting that aggressive campaigning by third parties, without questionable conduct by the judges themselves, does not warrant recusal. The court ultimately denied the motion to recuse the other four justices.

Judicial RecusalJudicial ImpartialityPolitical Action CommitteesJudicial ElectionsCampaign FinanceMedical MalpracticeTexas Supreme CourtAppearance of BiasEthical ConductJudicial Ethics
References
55
Case No. 07-08-0388-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2009

Elizabeth Overstreet v. Judge Bradley S. Underwood, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the 364th Judicial District, Lubbock County, Texas

Elizabeth Overstreet appealed the trial court's decision regarding her employment termination and defamation claims against Judge Bradley Underwood. Overstreet, a Court Coordinator for the 364th District Court, was terminated after reporting an incident of inappropriate touching and subsequently not returning to her position. She filed complaints with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lawsuit was timely filed under the Texas Labor Code and considered the defamation claim. The court concluded that Overstreet's suit was not timely filed, as the first right-to-sue notice was controlling, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the defamation claim, finding no defamatory statement was published.

Employment TerminationRetaliation ClaimDefamation LawsuitSummary Judgment AppealJurisdictional PleaStatute of LimitationsTexas Labor CodeCivil Rights ActCourt CoordinatorJudicial Capacity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flynn-Stallmer v. Stallmer

Petitioner Susannah Flynn-Stallmer appealed three orders: two from Family Court concerning child custody awarded to respondent Timothy J. Stallmer, and one from Supreme Court denying her motion to vacate the Family Court order on grounds of judicial recusal. Family Court awarded custody to the father, Timothy J. Stallmer, finding it in the children's best interest after weighing various factors including the parents' stability, work records, and the father's supportive extended family, while also considering the mother's inconsistencies and extramarital relationship. The appeals court affirmed Family Court's custody decision, finding it supported by the record and that the court did not improperly rely on matters outside the record or err in denying the mother's motion to present additional testimony. Finally, the Supreme Court's denial of the mother's application to set aside the custody order due to alleged judicial disqualification was affirmed, as the court found no familial relationship between the Family Court Judge and the respondent that would mandate recusal under Judiciary Law § 14, and the Judge's disclosure of a tenuous past tie did not reflect bias.

Child CustodyJudicial RecusalFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewDiscretionCredibilityParental StabilityFamily Court Act Article 6CPLR 4404(b)
References
6
Case No. 05-12-01463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

In re Amos

Heidi Amos, a defendant in a criminal case, successfully moved to recuse the trial judge, Etta Mullin. The assigned judge, Sue Pirtle, granted the recusal. Subsequently, Judge Mullin filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Pirtle granted, scheduling a new hearing. Amos petitioned for writs of mandamus and prohibition, arguing Judge Mullin's motion was improper and Judge Pirtle's authority had expired after the initial recusal and case transfer. The court agreed, concluding Judge Mullin had no authority to file for reconsideration and Judge Pirtle lacked the authority to act. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, preventing Judge Pirtle from reconsidering the recusal order, but denied the writ of prohibition.

Judicial RecusalWrit of MandamusWrit of ProhibitionJudicial AuthorityCriminal ProcedureDue Course of LawTrial Judge ImpartialityMotion for ReconsiderationAssigned JudgeInterlocutory Appeal
References
21
Case No. 05-12-01500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2013

in Re: Heidi Amos

Heidi Amos, the defendant in a criminal case, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent Judge Sue Pirtle from reconsidering a recusal order against trial judge Etta Mullin. Initially, Judge Pirtle granted Amos's motion to recuse Judge Mullin. However, Judge Mullin filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Pirtle granted, attempting to set a new hearing for the recusal. The Court of Appeals found that Judge Mullin's motion for reconsideration was improper and that Judge Pirtle exceeded her authority by acting after the case had been transferred. Therefore, the court conditionally granted Amos's petition for writ of mandamus, ruling that Judge Pirtle must vacate her order granting reconsideration.

Recusal MotionJudicial AuthorityWrit of MandamusDue ProcessTexas Appellate ProcedureCriminal ProcedureAssigned JudgeReconsideration of OrderJudicial ImpartialityAppellate Remedy
References
23
Case No. E2016-02178-SC-T10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2017

Jeanie Holsclaw v. Ivy Hall Nursing Home, Inc.

This accelerated appeal concerns a trial judge's decision not to recuse herself after contacting a university director about an expert witness's qualifications. The defendant moved for recusal, arguing the judge engaged in an independent investigation and ex parte communication. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of recusal, but the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that the trial judge's actions, while an ex parte communication and independent investigation, did not constitute 'personal knowledge' requiring recusal under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Therefore, a person of ordinary prudence would not reasonably question the trial judge's impartiality, and the denial of the recusal motion was appropriate.

RecusalJudicial ImpartialityEx Parte CommunicationIndependent InvestigationExpert Witness QualificationsVocational DisabilityTennessee Supreme CourtJudicial EthicsAppellate ProcedureAbuse of Discretion
References
9
Case No. W2023-00304-SC-T10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2023

Ben C. Adams v. Buchanan D. Dunavant v. Watson Burns PLLC

This case involves an accelerated appeal concerning a recusal motion filed against a probate judge in an interpleader action. The law firm defendants, Watson Burns, PLLC and Bass, Berry & Sims PLC, sought the judge's recusal based on his previous expert testimony against Watson Burns in an unrelated 2017 case concerning attorney fees. The probate judge initially denied the recusal motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering recusal. However, the Supreme Court, upon an application for permission to appeal by Lillian Dunavant and Mary Douglas Dunavant, reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, reinstating the probate judge's denial. The Supreme Court held that neither the judge's prior expert opinion nor subsequent adverse rulings provided an objectively reasonable basis for questioning his impartiality.

Judicial RecusalJudicial ImpartialityExpert Witness TestimonyAttorney FeesProbate LawTrust DisputesAppellate ReviewStandard of ReviewJudicial EthicsExtrajudicial Bias
References
18
Case No. W2017-02255-COA-T10B-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Ricky L. Boren v. Hill Boren, PC

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B concerning the denial of a motion for recusal. The underlying dispute involves an agreement for future transfer of controlling interest in a law firm, Hill Boren, PC, between plaintiffs Ricky L. Boren and Jeffrey P. Boyd, and defendants T. Robert Hill and Hill Boren, PC. Chancellor James F. Butler recused himself due to familiarity with the parties, and Senior Judge Robert E. Lee Davies was assigned. The defendants (Petitioners) sought Judge Davies's recusal, alleging inappropriate ex parte communication and judicial bias based on adverse rulings. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition de novo and found no factual basis for the ex parte communication claim, noting the Petitioners' delayed filing. It also determined that Judge Davies applied the correct legal standard and that his adverse rulings, even if numerous, did not demonstrate the pervasive bias required for recusal from an extrajudicial source. The trial court's decision to deny the motion for recusal was affirmed.

Judicial RecusalInterlocutory AppealJudicial ImpartialityEx Parte CommunicationJudicial BiasAbuse of DiscretionStandard of Review De NovoCourt of Appeals TennesseeChancery CourtMotion to Disqualify
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 9,346 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