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
Apr 05, 1999

Yetter v. Jones

This case involves cross appeals from a Family Court order concerning child custody following the parties' 1995 divorce. Custody was initially awarded to the petitioner but later, after the petitioner's hospitalization, temporary custody shifted to the respondent. Both parties then petitioned for sole custody, leading the Family Court to award joint custody with the children's primary residence with the respondent. The Appellate Division reversed the joint custody award, determining that the parents' demonstrated bitterness and hostility made cooperative co-parenting impossible and thus joint custody an unworkable solution. Based on the petitioner's recurring mental health challenges, instances of poor judgment in relationships, and an unstable environment, contrasted with the respondent's more stable home life where the children were thriving, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent. The Appellate Division also affirmed the Family Court's discretion in not ordering home studies or additional psychological reports, given the available testimony and information.

custody disputejoint custody reversalsole custody awardparental mental healthchild welfarevisitation rightshostile co-parentsbest interests of childrenappellate reviewFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alanna M. v. Duncan M.

Judge Miller's dissenting opinion argues that the Supreme Court's custody determination, which granted custody to the father, lacks a sound and substantial basis. The dissent asserts that the children's best interests would be served by transferring custody to the mother, a view shared by the court-appointed child psychiatrist, Michael's therapist, and the Law Guardian. It highlights the father's admitted abusive behavior, Michael's fear, and criticizes the court's disregard for expert opinions and the child's preference. The opinion also notes the temporary nature of the initial custody agreement and the mother's consistent involvement, suggesting a custody change would not be disruptive.

Custody DisputeChild CustodyDissenting OpinionBest Interests of ChildExpert TestimonyChild Abuse AllegationsParental FitnessPsychological EvaluationChild's PreferenceJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2006

Leo v. Leo

The Family Court of Albany Court granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order, awarding him primary physical custody of his daughter. This decision followed two instances where the mother, who suffers from bipolar disorder, experienced severe episodes requiring hospitalization, deeply traumatizing the child. The father had initially obtained temporary custody and later sought permanent modification. The mother appealed, citing procedural unfairness and insufficient evidence to support the custody change. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that there was a substantial change in circumstances and that placing primary physical custody with the father served the child's best interests.

Custody ModificationBipolar DisorderChild TraumaParental FitnessBest Interest of ChildFamily Court AppealMental HealthAppellate ReviewChange in CircumstancesPhysical Custody
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Custody of Rebecca B.

In a child custody proceeding, the court unanimously affirmed orders from the Family Court, New York County. These orders denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, granted the Law Guardian's motion to quash subpoenas, and denied the respondent's motion to disqualify a court-appointed psychiatrist. The court found that Lawyers for Children, Inc., as the child's Law Guardian, had standing to seek a change of custody. It also ruled that communications between the child and the Law Guardian, as well as a hired social worker, were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity, justifying the quashing of subpoenas. Furthermore, the motion to disqualify the psychiatrist was properly denied due to a lack of proof of bias.

Child CustodyLaw Guardian StandingSubpoena QuashalAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrinePsychiatrist DisqualificationFamily Court OrdersAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionLegal Representation of Child
References
7
Case No. E1999-00102-COA-R10-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

D. A. Price v. P. C. Price

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed a decision from the Blount County Circuit Court concerning a custody modification. The trial court had changed the children's physical custody from joint to sole custody for the mother, P. C. Price, primarily due to the father, D. A. Price, moving to Knoxville. Crucially, this change occurred during a hearing initially limited to determining if a temporary injunction, granting the mother temporary custody, should continue. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by making a permanent custody change without allowing both parties a full and fair hearing on the change of circumstances. Additionally, the appellate court determined there was no finding of irreparable harm to justify continuing the temporary injunction. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the original joint custody arrangement, and remanded the case for a comprehensive trial on the custody modification issue.

Custody DisputeJoint CustodyChange of CustodyTemporary InjunctionIrreparable HarmAppellate ReviewRemandParental RelocationChild's Best InterestHomosexual Parent
References
10
Case No. 05-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2007

Reliance National Indemnity Company, L&T, J v. and Lamar Construction, Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

This case addresses whether a temporary employment agency, Advance’d Temporaries, Inc., 'furnishes labor' under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code, thereby qualifying for a mechanic's lien. The dispute arose from Advance’d supplying workers to a subcontractor, Gonzalez Construction, for a project overseen by general contractor Lamar Construction, Inc. After Gonzalez failed to pay Advance’d, Advance’d claimed a mechanic's lien, which the trial court denied but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that Advance’d did furnish labor because it acted as the employer of the temporary workers, responsible for their hiring, payment, and insurance, despite not controlling their daily work. The Court rejected the application of the borrowed-employee doctrine in this contractual context, affirming Advance'd's entitlement to a mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienTemporary EmploymentLabor LawConstruction ContractsEmployer StatusTexas Property CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor Payment
References
6
Case No. 13-01-821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Advance'd Temporaries, Inc. v. Reliance Surety Company, Corpus Christi Crosswinds Apartments, Ltd., Cesar Gonzalez, Individually and D/B/A Gonzalez Construction

This is a mechanic's lien case from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Court of Appeals. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc., a temporary employment agency, appealed a trial court's decision that denied its standing to assert lien rights under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code. Advance'd had provided temporary laborers to Gonzalez Construction for an apartment construction project but was left with a significant unpaid balance when Gonzalez defaulted. The appellate court reviewed whether Advance'd, by 'furnishing labor,' qualified for mechanic's lien protection. Reversing the trial court, the court held that Chapter 53 protects those who furnish labor in the direct prosecution of work, and Advance'd's involvement in recruiting, hiring, and insuring the workers established it as such. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Mechanic's LienTemporary Employment AgencyStandingTexas Property CodeFurnishing LaborSubcontractorPayment BondConstruction ProjectAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1992

In re Vanessa E.

This case concerns a custody dispute over Vanessa E., a nine-year-old child whose parents' marriage was dissolved in Iowa. The mother, a New York City resident, filed a custody petition in New York Family Court, alleging physical and sexual abuse by the father. The Family Court initially granted temporary custody to the mother, citing emergency jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 75-d (1) (c) (ii), following a sexual abuse evaluation. Subsequently, the Family Court declined to exercise jurisdiction due to a parallel proceeding initiated by the father in Iowa, though it continued the temporary custody order. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Family Court erred in declining jurisdiction under various sections of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The appellate court found that New York was a suitable forum given the child's residency and the location of essential witnesses and evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that the Family Court could not continue a temporary custody order after declining subject matter jurisdiction.

Child CustodyEmergency JurisdictionUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction ActDomestic Relations LawSexual Abuse AllegationsForum Non ConveniensFamily CourtAppellate ReviewTemporary CustodyParental Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bogus v. Manpower Temporary Services

Karen Bogus, a temporary employee of Manpower Temporary Services assigned to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), sustained injuries after slipping on ice in her workplace parking lot. She reported the incident to Mr. Mike Hill, a TVA supervisor who acted as her primary contact for Manpower. The trial court dismissed her workers' compensation claim, ruling that she failed to provide sufficient notice to her employer. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed this decision, finding that notice to Mr. Hill was adequate given his role, and that Manpower had actual notice of the injury within 30 days. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination on its merits.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementTemporary EmploymentLoaned Employee DoctrineGeneral and Special EmployersScope of EmploymentIcy ConditionsParking Lot AccidentAgencyRemand
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valone v. Valone

This case involves a father's attempt to gain temporary physical custody of his 14-year-old daughter in New York, where he resides, against his wife who lives in Tennessee. The father initiated a divorce action in New York, seeking custody. The wife, making a limited appearance, moved to dismiss the custody application, arguing the New York court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and personal jurisdiction over her. The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over divorce and ancillary custody but lacked personal jurisdiction over the wife under CPLR 302(b) due to insufficient minimum contacts with New York, as their matrimonial domicile was too distant in time and the daughter's visitation did not establish personal jurisdiction over the mother. Furthermore, the court found the father's allegations of misconduct did not meet the 'imminent risk of harm' standard required for temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Consequently, the wife's motion to dismiss the request for temporary custody was granted, and the entire divorce complaint was dismissed due to the lack of personal jurisdiction over the wife. The court noted the father was under no legal obligation to return the child until a Tennessee court issued an order.

Child CustodyJurisdictionUCCJEAPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionDivorce ActionTemporary CustodyEmergency JurisdictionMinimum ContactsDomestic Relations Law
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 3,935 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