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
May 02, 2001

State v. Wyrick

The defendant, Anthony Lynn Wyriek, was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape and sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole as a repeat violent offender. He appealed, raising multiple issues including challenges to the sufficiency of the presentment and evidence, the admission of in-court identification, and the constitutionality of the repeat violent offender statute. Crucially, the defendant also argued that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a prior false accusation of rape by the victim, which he contended was relevant to her credibility and motive to lie. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee determined that the trial court committed harmful error by not allowing the cross-examination of the victim on this prior false accusation, particularly given the victim's testimony was the primary evidence linking the defendant to the crime and other physical evidence was inconclusive. Consequently, the court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Aggravated RapeSentencing EnhancementRepeat Violent Offender StatutePrior False AccusationVictim CredibilityCross-ExaminationConfrontation ClauseDue Process ViolationEvidentiary RulesRecidivism
References
112
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2017

In re Harris

The State filed a civil petition to commit Bobby Lee Harris for involuntary treatment and supervision as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act. The jury found Harris to be a sexually violent predator, leading to a civil commitment order. Harris appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence that his future acts would be predatory, and the trial court's partial directed verdict on his repeat sexually violent offender status. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of a behavioral abnormality predisposing him to sexually violent offenses, and that a partial directed verdict on the repeat sexually violent offender element was permissible when no fact issue exists.

Sexually Violent Predator ActCivil CommitmentBehavioral AbnormalityPredatory ActRepeat Sexually Violent OffenderLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDirected VerdictPedophiliaAntisocial Personality Disorder
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re J.G.

J.G., a juvenile offender, appealed an order transferring her from the Texas Youth Commission to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice after she pleaded true to capital murder charges and received a 35-year determinate sentence. J.G. contended that the determinate sentence system violated various constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection, the right to indictment, and protection against double jeopardy under both U.S. and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court reviewed each of J.G.'s contentions and found no constitutional infirmity, affirming the transfer order. The court emphasized that the determinate sentence statutes aim to balance the welfare of the child with the protection of society from violent juvenile offenders.

Determinate SentencingJuvenile JusticeConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionDouble JeopardyRight to CounselJuvenile TransferCapital MurderTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. M2016-01518-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2017

Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Department of Correction

This case involves a sex offender's challenge to the conditions of his community supervision for life, specifically arguing that the Sex Offender Directives constituted ex post facto laws and were unconstitutionally vague. Craig Robert Nunn also raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA). The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that most constitutional claims were time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed in part, determining that Nunn's UAPA declaratory claims asserting constitutional violations were subject to a ten-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of his § 1983 claim as time-barred and rejected his arguments concerning separation of powers and statutory vagueness.

Sex OffenderCommunity SupervisionEx Post FactoDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineStatute of LimitationsDeclaratory ReliefAppellate ProcedureConstitutional LawTennessee Constitution
References
132
Case No. No. 2-99-048-CV.
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2000

In Re MAH

M.A.H., a juvenile, was found to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing two instances of indecency with a child and was subsequently required to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program. M.A.H. appealed, contending that the registration program violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the Texas and United States Constitutions. The court addressed M.A.H.'s arguments that the program requires notification without a preliminary determination of ongoing threat, allows for overly broad dissemination of information, and lacks an exemption mechanism available to other offenders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the sex offender registration and notification statutes bear a rational relationship to the State's legitimate interest in public safety and do not infringe upon M.A.H.'s due process or equal protection rights.

Juvenile JusticeSex Offender Registration ProgramDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawTexas LawDelinquent ConductPublic SafetyRecidivismNotification Requirements
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. 03-18-00185-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2019

Charles Edward Smith v. State

Appellant Charles Edward Smith was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement as a habitual offender. On appeal, Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, and the alleged lack of proper notice for habitual offender sentencing. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, noting that circumstantial evidence, motive, and opportunity linked Smith to the crime. The court also determined that Smith failed to preserve his complaints regarding the prior bad acts and the habitual offender sentencing for appellate review. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with a modification to correct a clerical error in the 'Statute for Offense' designation.

Burglary of HabitationHabitual Offender SentencingSufficiency of EvidencePrior Bad Acts EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCriminal Due ProcessTexas Criminal LawEvidentiary ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceFelony Conviction
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 3,823 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