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. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. W1998-00445-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2001

D&E Construction Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co.

This case concerns a contractual payment dispute between D&E Construction Company, Inc. and Robert J. Denley Co., Inc., which was initially referred to arbitration. The arbitration panel awarded attorney's fees to D&E, a decision subsequently vacated by the trial court for exceeding the arbitrators' authority. The Court of Appeals reinstated the full award, but the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed this in part. The Supreme Court found that the arbitrators indeed exceeded their powers by awarding attorney's fees, as the contract's arbitration provision and Tennessee law did not permit such an award without explicit agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated only the portion of the award related to attorney's fees and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on other unresolved issues.

Arbitration LawContractual DisputesAttorney FeesArbitration AwardJudicial Review of ArbitrationScope of Arbitrator AuthorityUniform Arbitration ActTennessee Supreme CourtContract InterpretationStatutory Construction
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D & E Construction Co. v. Robert J. Denley Co.

This case involves a contractual payment dispute between project owner Robert J. Denley Company, Inc. and contractor D & E Construction Company, Inc. over the Cottonwood Estates Subdivision in Collierville, Tennessee, initially resolved through arbitration. The arbitration panel awarded D & E Construction Company, Inc. retainage, interest, and attorney’s fees, but the trial court subsequently vacated the attorney’s fees portion, asserting the arbitrators exceeded their authority. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the entire award, prompting Denley to petition the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrators indeed exceeded their authority in awarding attorney’s fees, as the contract and Tennessee law did not explicitly permit such awards in arbitration without a specific agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in part, vacated the award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on other issues.

ArbitrationAttorney FeesContract DisputeConstruction LawArbitration AwardJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureTennessee Uniform Arbitration ActExceeded PowersContract Interpretation
References
20
Case No. 07-05-0336-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2006

Robert E. Lang v. State

Appellant Robert E. Lang was convicted after a jury trial of the offense of murder and was sentenced to a term of confinement for life. His attorney filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, certifying that there was no reversible error for appeal. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and appellant's pro se response, finding no arguable grounds to support an appeal. Consequently, the motion to withdraw was granted, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Murder convictionJury trialLife sentenceAnders briefMotion to withdrawAppellate reviewFrivolous appealAffirmation of judgmentCriminal appealTexas Court of Appeals
References
5
Case No. M2012-01657-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2013

In the Matter of Cheyenne E. H. and Robert L. H.

This case concerns the termination of Mother Doloria H.'s parental rights to her two children, Cheyenne E. H. and Robert L. H. The Chancery Court for Lawrence County terminated her rights on grounds of abandonment by failure to support, substantial non-compliance with permanency plans, and persistence of conditions, also finding it to be in the children's best interest. Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the statutory grounds, that termination was not in the children's best interest, and that the Department of Children’s Services failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of parental rights on all grounds.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentPermanency Plan Non-compliancePersistence of ConditionsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildReunification EffortsDependency and NeglectTennessee LawChild Support
References
18
Case No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2024

Robert E. Lee Flade v. City of Shelbyville, Tennessee

This case examines the intersection of the rule governing voluntary dismissal of civil actions (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.01) and the statutory scheme of the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA). Robert E. Lee Flade filed suit against the City of Shelbyville, Stephanie Isaacs, and the Bedford County Listening Project (BCLP) over alleged disparaging remarks on social media. Isaacs and BCLP filed motions to dismiss and petitions under the TPPA. Before a hearing, Flade voluntarily nonsuited his complaint, leading to an order of dismissal without prejudice, which prompted the defendants to seek adjudication of their TPPA petitions. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that the mere filing of a TPPA petition does not limit a plaintiff's right to voluntary nonsuit, create a vested right for adjudication, or qualify as a counterclaim under Rule 41.01(1).

Voluntary NonsuitTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Anti-SLAPP StatuteCivil Procedure Rule 41.01Vested Rights ExceptionCounterclaimAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional RightsFree Speech
References
59
Case No. ADJ8190306
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

Silvestre Sanchez vs. Robert E. Town, Allied Insurance, A Nationwide Company

This case concerns whether an injured worker, Silvestre Sanchez, was an employee of Robert E. Town for workers' compensation purposes. The Board granted reconsideration to reverse the WCJ's finding of employment. The primary issue was whether Sanchez met the 52-hour work requirement within the 90 days preceding injury under Labor Code section 3352(h), which excludes certain residential employees. The Board found that based on conflicting testimony regarding a second payment, the applicant did not prove he worked over 52 hours, thus excluding him from coverage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSilvestre SanchezRobert E. TownAllied InsuranceLabor Code section 3352(h)excluded employeeresidential employee90-day perioddate of injuryFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04669
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

Matter of Town of Beekman v. Town Bd. of the Town of Union Vale

The Town of Beekman initiated a hybrid proceeding challenging resolutions by the Town Board of Union Vale, which approved a telecommunications tower, deemed it exempt from Beekman's zoning, and issued negative environmental declarations under SEQRA. The Supreme Court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and upheld the resolutions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the 'balancing of public interests' test supported the Board's determination of zoning immunity for the project, citing its public benefit in addressing cellular coverage gaps and aiding emergency services. The court also found that the Board's SEQRA determination was made in accordance with lawful procedure and was not arbitrary or capricious, having taken a hard look at environmental concerns.

zoning immunitytelecommunications towerenvironmental reviewSEQRACPLR Article 78public interest balancing testgovernmental entities conflictDutchess Countyappellate reviewland use regulation
References
13
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2006

Bissell v. Town of Amherst

Plaintiff Peter E. Bissell sustained grave injuries while employed by McGonigle & Hilger Roofing Company (M & H) during roofing work for the Town of Amherst. The Town of Amherst, as defendant and third-party plaintiff, sued M & H for indemnification and contribution, alleging a grave injury. M & H moved for summary judgment, asserting the third-party action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Supreme Court denied M & H's motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that M & H's own submissions created a factual issue regarding the plaintiff's grave injury, thus failing to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjurySummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimContribution ClaimBilateral Lower Extremity ParaparesisParalysis of FeetFootdropLoss of Use
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,137 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