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. 2018-01-0224
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2019

Yearby, Reginald v. Armstrong Relocation

This expedited hearing addressed whether the employee, Reginald Yearby, was entitled to temporary disability benefits at the maximum compensation rate of $992.20, and if the employer, Armstrong Relocation, was due a credit for overpayment. The Court found Mr. Yearby's actual taxable earnings were significantly less than initially stated, derived from his 2016 and 2017 tax returns, even though he was treated as an employee for workers' compensation purposes despite being an independent contractor. Citing Tennessee Code Annotated, the Court determined Mr. Yearby's correct average weekly wage was $552.50, leading to a compensation rate of $368.35. Consequently, his request for maximum benefits was denied, and Armstrong Relocation was granted a credit for past overpayments.

Temporary disability benefitsWorkers' CompensationAverage weekly wageOverpaymentExpedited hearingIndependent contractorEarningsBusiness expensesCompensation rateMedical treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2012

Hildebrandt v. Lee

The Family Court denied the mother's application to relocate to Texas with the minor child and granted the father's petition for modification of custody, awarding him sole custody with visitation to the mother. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests. The court considered the mother's and her parents' exclusionary behavior and hostility toward the father, which made it unlikely the father-child relationship would be preserved if relocation occurred. The court also rejected the forensic expert’s opinion due to deficiencies, including the mother’s prior violations of court orders by temporarily leaving the jurisdiction and permanently moving without proper notification. The mother's allegations of sexual improprieties by the father were also found unsubstantiated.

Child CustodyRelocation RequestBest Interests of ChildParental HostilityForensic Expert OpinionVisitation RightsFamily Law AppealNew York CourtsCustody Modification
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maynard v. Maynard

Petitioner sought joint legal and physical custody of her children after the respondent, her ex-husband, unilaterally moved with them to Virginia. The Family Court of Essex County initially dismissed the petitioner's application, awarding custody to the respondent. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Family Court should have applied the legal standard for custody relocation cases. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that a custodial parent's move that deprives the noncustodial parent of customary contact is disfavored without exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Joint CustodyChild RelocationFamily LawCustody DisputeAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsBest Interests of the ChildDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActEssex County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc.

Plaintiff Julianne Eisenberg sued Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc. and related entities, alleging hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliatory termination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Eisenberg was an independent contractor, not an employee. The court applied the common law agency test, weighing factors like tax treatment, skill required, and control. Ultimately, the court determined Eisenberg was an independent contractor, primarily due to her tax status and lack of employee benefits, and thus not protected by the relevant statutes. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSexual HarassmentDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliatory TerminationSummary Judgment
References
22
Case No. W2011-01649-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Rolando Toyos v. Amanda G. Hammock

This case involves a direct appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County concerning child custody, relocation, and attorney fees. The primary residential parent, Mother Amanda G. Hammock, notified Father Rolando Toyos of her intent to relocate. Father opposed the relocation and petitioned to be named the child's primary residential parent. The trial court found a material change in circumstances but determined that the child's best interests were served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent and allowed her relocation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court's decision on Mother remaining the primary residential parent, citing Father's anger, its effect on his support system, Mother's remarriage and relocation desire, and Father's unilateral decision-making. However, the appellate court vacated the relocation order and remanded the issue for an evidentiary hearing, finding Father was effectively denied an opportunity to present evidence on relocation. Additionally, the Court of Appeals vacated and reinstated certain financial and decision-making provisions of the 2007 Consent Order, contingent on the relocation outcome. It upheld the trial court's orders for Father to attend parenting training and to address his nanny's attitude towards the Mother, but it vacated the prohibition on overnight visitation by opposite-sex partners in Father's home due to insufficient evidentiary foundation. Finally, the appellate court upheld the award of attorney fees to Mother.

Child CustodyParental RelocationBest Interests of the ChildVisitation RightsChild SupportAttorney FeesModification of Court OrdersJudicial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Carrier Corp.

Sandra Dunbar, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), petitioned for a Section 10(j) injunction against Carrier to prevent the relocation of its TR-1 facility from Syracuse, New York, to Huntersville, North Carolina. The NLRB alleged that Carrier failed to bargain in good faith with Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 527 (union) over the relocation decision, insisting to impasse on a non-mandatory subject that would alter the bargaining unit's scope. The court found reasonable cause to believe Carrier committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith regarding the mandatory subject of relocation. The injunction was granted in part, ordering Carrier to bargain in good faith with the union on the relocation decision and its effects, and enjoining further relocation actions without a good-faith impasse or agreement. A subsequent motion by Carrier for reconsideration, modification, and a limited stay pending appeal was denied.

Labor RelationsUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingSection 10(j) InjunctionRelocation of WorkBargaining ImpasseMandatory Bargaining SubjectPermissive Bargaining SubjectWaiver of RightsStatus Quo Ante
References
29
Case No. M2006-02212-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2008

Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Transportation

This case concerns Universal Outdoor, Inc.'s challenge against the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) regarding the removal and relocation of a billboard. TDOT ordered the removal of a pre-existing billboard for highway expansion, and Universal Outdoor moved it to a new location within its leasehold. However, TDOT refused to renew the permit or issue a new one, citing non-compliance with the Tennessee Billboard Regulation and Control Act of 1972 due to the relocation of a non-conforming sign. The administrative law judge and the chancery court affirmed TDOT's decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the chancery court's decision, ruling that the billboard's relocation nullified its 'grandfathered' status under the Billboard Act and its associated regulations, despite Universal Outdoor's arguments regarding municipal zoning laws and inverse condemnation. The court found TDOT's actions were consistent with federal and state statutes, and that Universal Outdoor had already been compensated for relocation costs, thus no unconstitutional taking occurred.

Billboard RegulationZoning LawNon-conforming UseAdministrative LawTakings ClauseInverse CondemnationProperty RightsHighway Beautification ActState Statute InterpretationAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rebecca HH. v. Gerald HH.

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order that granted the mother's request to relocate her child from Binghamton, Broome County, to Charlotte, North Carolina. The father opposed the relocation and cross-petitioned for sole custody, citing concerns about losing contact with the child and the child's extended family. The Family Court found the relocation to be in the child's best interests, considering the parents' poor communication, the mother's economic and employment opportunities in North Carolina, and the child's positive adjustment there. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, giving deference to its credibility assessments and finding a sound and substantial basis for its determination.

Custody ModificationChild RelocationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court AppealParental RightsVisitation ScheduleInterstate CustodyParental ConflictCredibility FindingsBroome County
References
5
Case No. W2021-01465-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2024

Daemon Shaun Key v. Cailey Marjorie Gonzales

Father appeals the denial of his petition to oppose Mother's relocation and to change custody. The trial court found the children's best interests were served by allowing Mother to relocate and remain the primary residential parent, also awarding Mother attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed, discerning no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decisions regarding relocation, custody, or the award of attorney's fees. The Court denied Mother’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, deeming the appeal not frivolous. The case extensively reviewed allegations of inappropriate behavior by the stepfather, which the trial court concluded did not pose a danger to the children.

Child CustodyParental RelocationBest Interest of the ChildAttorney FeesDependency and NeglectPrimary Residential ParentParenting Plan ModificationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewChancery Court Decision
References
18
Case No. M2011-01265-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2012

Michael Andrew Carman v. Kristi Michelle Carman

This is a post-divorce parental relocation case where the mother, Kristi Michelle Carman, sought to move with her seven minor children to Grand Prairie, Alberta, Canada, to reside with her new husband. The father, Michael Andrew Carman, opposed the relocation. The trial court denied the mother's request, finding no reasonable purpose for the move, a threat of specific and serious harm to the children, and that it was not in their best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the reasons for the relocation were insufficient to outweigh the significant loss of the father's ability to participate in the children's lives and the strong family ties in Tennessee, as well as the children's stated preference to remain.

Parental relocationChild custodyBest interests of the childDivorceFamily lawAppealTennesseeCross-border relocationChild welfareVisitation rights
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 109 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