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

Skolny v. Hillman

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of men's and boys' clothing, filed an action against Sidney Hillman, Jacob S. Potofsky, and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, alleging an unlawful conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from instigating strikes, picketing, and coercing employees to unionize, claiming these actions violated their 'open shop' employment contracts. Defendants denied the charges, arguing their actions were lawful labor practices and challenged the complaint's legal sufficiency. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming that such alleged acts constituted a common law conspiracy and warranted injunctive relief.

Labor disputeInjunctionConspiracyPicketingUnionizationEmployment contractsUnincorporated associationsPendente liteCommon law conspiracyOpen shop
References
13
Case No. E2019-01302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2020

Fatma Adel Sekik v. Nehad Abdelnabi

This is a divorce appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County, heard by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville. Husband challenged the denial of a continuance, child support and alimony obligations, and specific provisions within the parenting plan related to parental rights and contact with children. Additionally, Husband's brother and sister-in-law, who were joined as defendants, disputed the court's jurisdiction over them and their alleged civil conspiracy to dissipate marital assets located in the Gaza Strip. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the trial court's rulings, including its exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-spousal parties and its findings of a conspiracy to defraud the Wife of her marital share. Consequently, the judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed in all respects, upholding the financial and parenting orders, and the liability of the co-conspirators.

DivorceChild SupportAlimonyParenting PlanMarital PropertyCivil ConspiracyDissipation of AssetsJurisdictionForeign Real EstateGaza
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. 03-23-00455-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Quinn Hamilton Harwood v. Kimberley Anne Harwood

Quinn Hamilton Harwood appealed a final divorce decree, contesting the award of spousal maintenance to his ex-wife, Kimberley Anne Harwood. The appeal focused on Kimberley's eligibility for maintenance due to an incapacitating physical disability (lymphedema) and the calculation of the spousal maintenance amount, which was based on Quinn's alleged intentional underemployment. The Court of Appeals affirmed Kimberley's eligibility for spousal maintenance, finding sufficient evidence of her incapacitating disability and minimum reasonable needs. However, the court reversed the spousal maintenance award, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by calculating the amount based on Quinn's earning potential due to intentional underemployment, as the Family Code does not authorize this method for spousal maintenance. The case was remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of the spousal-maintenance amount.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceAlimonyIncapacitating DisabilityLymphedemaIntentional UnderemploymentEarning PotentialChild SupportFamily LawAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2000

Maher v. Herrman

The Maher Law Firm and Constance Maher sued former employee Regina Elkins for alleged loan repayment, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Maher also sued Elkins's new employers, David E. Herrman and Herrman & Herrman, L.L.P., for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims. Maher appealed, arguing errors related to the statute of limitations, misidentification of the plaintiff, fraudulent concealment, and the scope of the summary judgment motion regarding the conspiracy claim. The appellate court found errors in the summary judgment regarding the conspiracy claim and the application of the misidentification doctrine to plaintiffs, reversing and remanding those claims, while affirming the dismissal of the loan claims.

Summary Judgment AppealSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyStatute of LimitationsMisidentification DoctrineMisnomerRelation-Back DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePleading Errors
References
22
Case No. 02-18-00307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Norbert Bolda v. Clivaller Bolda

Norbert Bolda appealed the trial court's order denying his petition to modify or terminate a spousal-maintenance order, which required him to pay his ex-wife, Clivaller Bolda, $1,600 monthly. Norbert contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding of no material and substantial change and that the spousal maintenance exceeded the statutory cap. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court primarily ruled that the spousal maintenance obligation was contractual alimony, not court-ordered spousal maintenance, and thus not subject to modification under Chapter 8 of the Texas Family Code, and alternatively, that Norbert failed to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances.

Spousal MaintenanceContractual AlimonyModification of OrderDivorce DecreeMaterial and Substantial ChangeDisability BenefitsTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionEnforcement of Contract
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston

This antitrust case involves Affiliated Capital's claim against Gulf Coast, the City of Houston, and Mayor Jim McConn for an alleged conspiracy to limit competition for cable television franchises in Houston. The jury found that a conspiracy existed but that the boundary agreements, central to the plaintiff's primary theory, were not part of an illegal conspiracy. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the found conspiracy and the plaintiff's failure to secure a franchise, outside of the boundary agreements. The court also denied the plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief due to a lack of standing, and analyzed the inapplicability of Noerr-Pennington immunity and state action exemption to the defendants' conduct, had the plaintiff prevailed on the causation issue.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCable Television FranchisesMunicipal LawConspiracyNoerr-Pennington DoctrineState Action ExemptionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictCausationInjunctive Relief
References
31
Case No. 01-19-00580-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Thomas Gunnar Kelly v. Sherry Marie Kelly

This divorce appeal addresses the division of marital property and spousal maintenance. Appellant Thomas Kelly challenged the trial court's characterization of his 401(k) account, severance payments, an investment account, and a car. He also contested the spousal maintenance award and attorney's fees, arguing insufficient evidence for his wife's disability or minimum needs. The appellate court affirmed the dissolution of marriage but reversed and remanded the property division and spousal maintenance due to errors in classifying the 401(k) and a potential trust interest, necessitating a new determination of financial resources. The court affirmed the characterization of severance payments, the E*Trade account, and the Ford Mustang.

DivorceProperty DivisionSpousal MaintenanceCommunity PropertySeparate Property401(k) ApportionmentSeverance PaymentsInvestment AccountGift PropertyTestamentary Trust
References
69
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2010

United States v. Batista

Luis Batista, a former NYPD detective, was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice. This opinion and order details the court's reasoning for his sentencing. The court denied Batista's request for a mitigating role reduction, finding his contributions to the narcotics conspiracy substantial and unique. It also applied a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice due to materially false statements made to the court and perjury during trial. Furthermore, a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy was warranted, as it was reasonably foreseeable given Batista's background and the nature of the large-scale operation. Consequently, Batista was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and supervised release.

Sentencing GuidelinesPerjuryObstruction of JusticeFirearm EnhancementNarcotics ConspiracyBank FraudMitigating Role AdjustmentPolice DetectiveWiretap EvidencePresentence Report
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 461 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