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
Dec 03, 2015

Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal regarding judgments entered after a jury trial against the New York City Transit Authority and Annie M. Canty. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed two separate judgments for plaintiffs Diane Coleman and Dorothy Lemon. For Diane Coleman, the award for past pain and suffering was modified from $1.25 million to $1 million, with the rest affirmed. For Dorothy Lemon, the future lost earnings award was reduced from $728,000 to $520,000 over 25 years, while other awards for pain and suffering and past lost earnings were affirmed. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, including the redaction of a social worker's statement from hospital records and the preclusion of expert testimony due to late disclosure.

Damages ReductionPain and Suffering AwardLost Earnings CalculationAppellate ReviewJury TrialEvidentiary RulingsExpert Witness PreclusionHospital Records AdmissibilityBiomechanical ExpertsAccident Reconstruction
References
11
Case No. Appeal No. 01-A-01-9805-BC-00239; Claims Commission No. 301091
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

Coleman v. State

This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Claims Commission regarding a plaintiff's claim under Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(a)(1)(M). Steven Ray Coleman, the plaintiff, was shot during an incident involving ABC agents and Bedford County sheriff's deputies, leading to his claim. The Claims Commission initially dismissed the claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting the shooting was a willful act, not negligent, per section 9-8-307(d). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds, finding no evidence that a state employee fired the shot and clarifying that Bedford County deputy sheriffs are not considered 'state employees' under the relevant statute, thus the State's sovereign immunity was not waived for their actions.

JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityState LiabilityClaims CommissionDeputy SheriffsState EmployeesNegligent OperationWillful ActsStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Immunity Waiver
References
9
Case No. 01-18-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

IPFS Corporation v. Sue Ann Lopez

IPFS Corporation appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by Sue Ann Lopez. Lopez, a former IPFS sales representative, sought a declaratory judgment regarding non-solicitation agreements after joining a competitor. IPFS argued that Lopez's claim fell within the broad scope of their arbitration agreement, which covered 'all legal claims arising out of or relating to employment' with specific, narrow exclusions. The court analyzed the arbitration agreement's language, emphasizing the policy favoring arbitration and noting that Lopez's declaratory judgment, despite not seeking monetary damages, did not fall under the temporary equitable relief exception. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration and dismissing the case.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentNon-Solicitation AgreementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewEquitable ReliefScope of Arbitration
References
19
Case No. 14-09-00475-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

State v. Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for the 1985 murder of her husband. She sought dismissal due to a nearly 23-year prosecutorial delay, arguing due process violations, which the trial court granted. The State of Texas appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. The appellate court, applying the Fifth Circuit and Texas two-prong test, acknowledged substantial prejudice but found no evidence of intentional delay for an improper purpose. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, rejecting other grounds for dismissal such as effective assistance of counsel, right to testify, fair trial, and laches.

Pre-indictment DelayDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineMurder IndictmentAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. PD-1485-10
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2011

State of Texas v. Wilson, Carolyn Sue Krizan

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder 23 years after her husband's death. She filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to pre-indictment delay, which the trial court granted. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal. This Court granted her petition for discretionary review, arguing the delay caused substantial prejudice and was for an impermissible purpose. This Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that while Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice, she failed to prove the delay was an intentional device for tactical advantage or other bad faith purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Pre-indictment delayDue process violationFifth AmendmentTactical advantageBad faithSubstantial prejudiceStandard of reviewAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewCriminal procedure
References
21
Case No. M2015-02155-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2016

Patricia Sue Kuhlo v. Ernest Charles Kuhlo

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divorce action between Patricia Sue Kuhlo and Ernest Charles Kuhlo. Husband appealed several rulings, including the denial of attorney assistance, valuation and division of a partnership interest, the sale of commercial real estate, and awards of transitional alimony and attorney's fees to the Wife. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decisions, noting the Husband was not indigent and had opportunities to secure counsel. Furthermore, the court upheld the valuation of the partnership interest due to Husband's failure to provide documentation, and affirmed the transitional alimony and attorney's fees for the Wife given her financial need and contributions. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed on all grounds.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimonyTransitional AlimonyAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewDiscretion of Trial CourtPartnership Interest ValuationSpecial MasterFair Market Value
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linda Coleman v. Victoria County

This consolidated appeal addresses two post-foreclosure escheat claims by Victoria County for excess proceeds from tax foreclosure judgments against appellants Linda Coleman, et al. and Eugene De Los Santos, et al. Appellants argued that their constitutional due process rights were violated due to inadequate notice regarding their property seizure and the escheat claims, and that Texas Tax Code section 34.03 violates due process and the Takings Clause. The trial court initially granted Victoria County's escheat claims, finding appellants failed to petition for proceeds within the two-year statutory deadline and that no statutory exception existed for lack of notice. The appellate court reversed and remanded, agreeing with the appellants that the lack of statutory notice by the clerk, as required by Tax Code section 34.03(a), violated their procedural due process rights, thereby denying them a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Due ProcessEscheatTax ForeclosureExcess ProceedsNotice RequirementTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationReversal
References
19
Case No. 06-10-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2011

Kerri Sue Hass Culver v. Billy Ray Culver

The case involves an appeal by Kerri Sue Hass Culver (Appellant) against a protective order obtained by her husband, Billy Ray Culver (Appellee). Billy Ray sought the protective order alleging family violence and the likelihood of future family violence. The trial court granted the protective order, and Kerri appealed, raising nine points of error including insufficient evidence, refusal of discovery and continuance motions, ineffective assistance of counsel, application of the Brady rule, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of recusal motions, and failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding sufficient evidence of family violence and rejecting all of Kerri's points of error. The court found that Kerri's actions, such as attempting to run Billy off the road with her car and throwing a telephone at him, constituted family violence. The court also clarified that the modified judgments issued by the trial court were within its plenary power and did not require additional hearings under Chapter 87 of the Texas Family Code.

Protective OrderFamily ViolenceDomestic AbuseAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial DiscretionMotion for ContinuanceRecusalDue ProcessCivil Injunction
References
35
Case No. 03-95-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1996

J. H. Schlueter and Richard Stephen Schlueter v. Karen Sue Schlueter

This is an appeal from a divorce action. Richard Schlueter and J. H. Schlueter (Hudson) appealed a judgment against them for fraud and conspiracy against Karen Sue Schlueter and the community estate. The trial court had awarded damages for fraud related to the transfer of an emu business interest and handling of Richard's IBM incentive bonus, along with punitive damages. Appellants challenged the admission of 'other acts' evidence, the award of exemplary damages, and the disproportionate division of property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings, upholding the damages, and confirming the property division.

DivorceFraudConspiracyCommunity PropertyInterspousal ImmunityExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
29
Case No. 01-20-00231-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2022

Edward Schafman v. Sue Schafman

The case involves an appeal by Edward Schafman against a divorce decree granted to Sue Schafman. Edward challenged the award of spousal maintenance to Sue and the trial court's finding of cruel treatment. The appellate court examined whether Sue was eligible for maintenance due to an incapacitating mental disability and if the amount and duration of maintenance were appropriate. It also reviewed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the cruel treatment finding. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's divorce decree, upholding the spousal maintenance award and the finding of cruel treatment.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceCruel TreatmentMental DisabilityAlcohol AbuseMarital EstateProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFamily Law
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 367 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