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. W2017-00551-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

In Re: Last Will and Testament of Mary Theresse Erde

This case is a will contest concerning the holographic will of Mary Theresse Erde. Appellant Carl Barton challenged the will, claiming lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Beneficiary Deborah Lawson. The trial court denied Barton's motion to set aside the order admitting the will to probate and found that Decedent possessed testamentary capacity and that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in striking Barton's amended counter-petition due to futility and upholding the findings regarding testamentary capacity and the rebuttal of undue influence through independent legal advice and lack of suspicious circumstances.

Will contestHolographic willTestamentary capacityUndue influenceConfidential relationshipIndependent legal adviceFutility of amendmentRule 15.01 Tennessee Civil ProcedureRule 60.02 Tennessee Civil ProcedureAppellate review
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. Wills, Jr. v. The City of Memphis

John R. Wills, Jr., sought to subdivide his property, Lot 94, in the Belle Meade Subdivision into two lots, but his application was denied by the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board and the Memphis City Council. Wills subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari, leading the Chancery Court of Shelby County to reverse the City Council's decision and remand the case for a rehearing. The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appealed this decision. The appellate court identified an ambiguity in the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the applicability of "contextual infill development standards" (Section 3.9.2) to Wills' property, specifically concerning the definition of "development" in the context of surrounding properties established before 1950. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling, which stated Wills' application complied with all UDC provisions, was premature. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's order, remanding the case for further proceedings to the City Council to definitively interpret and apply UDC Section 3.9.2(B)(1) based on the existing record.

ZoningSubdivision RegulationsLand Use ControlUnified Development Code (UDC)Administrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious DecisionStatutory InterpretationRemand Order
References
44
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. W2024-01234-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

Celeste Lachapelle as the beneficiary of the will of James Russell Pace v. Blanchard E. Tual

Appellant Celeste LaChapelle sued the law firm Tual Graves, PLLC, and attorney Blanchard E. Tual for professional negligence. LaChapelle alleged that the firm negligently prepared a will for her fiancé, James Russell Pace, which was later invalidated in Mississippi due to improper execution. The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm, concluding that LaChapelle's claim accrued in May 2021 when she had to respond to the will contest, thereby exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error, and agreed that the claim accrued when LaChapelle incurred expenses defending the will. The court also rejected the argument of fraudulent concealment by the appellees, stating that reasonable diligence would have led to the discovery of the injury earlier.

Professional negligenceLegal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDiscovery ruleWill contestProbate lawFraudulent concealmentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAccrual of claim
References
42
Case No. M2017-00958-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

In Re Addalyne S.

In this parental termination case, maternal Grandparents sought to terminate the parental rights of both Mother and Father for abandonment. The trial court found no grounds for termination as to Mother and only willful failure to support for Father, but ultimately concluded that terminating Father's rights was not in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment. It upheld the finding against Mother for willful failure to visit and support, and for Father, it affirmed the willful failure to support but agreed that termination was not in the child's best interest, citing Father's meaningful relationship with the child and the guardian ad litem's recommendation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentWillful Failure to SupportWillful Failure to VisitBest Interest of the ChildGrandparent PetitionDrug AbuseIncarcerationParental CapacityToken Support
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. E2019-00736-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2019

In Re Kolton C.

This case concerns an appeal by Cassandra C. (Mother) against the termination of her parental rights to her minor child, Kolton C. The trial court had terminated her rights on grounds of severe child abuse, abandonment by willful failure to visit, and abandonment by willful failure to support. The Court of Appeals reversed the termination based on failure to support, noting Mother's participation in a rehabilitation program made her failure not willful. However, the court affirmed the termination based on severe child abuse due to prenatal drug use and failure to visit. The decision emphasizes that termination remains in the child's best interest given the child's bond with the appellee, Erin S., and the mother's unaddressed issues.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbusePrenatal Drug ExposureAbandonmentFailure to VisitFailure to Support (Reversed)Best Interest of the ChildNeonatal Abstinence SyndromeRehabilitation ProgramAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. E2019-00762-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2020

In Re: Kelsea L.

This appeal concerns the termination of a father's parental rights based on abandonment due to willful failure to visit and support. The trial court found both grounds proven and that termination was in the child's best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of willful failure to support, citing insufficient evidence of the father's capacity to pay. However, the appellate court affirmed the finding of willful failure to visit and upheld the determination that termination was in the child's best interest. Consequently, the termination of the father's parental rights was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentWillful Failure to VisitWillful Failure to SupportChild's Best InterestAppellate Court DecisionTennessee LawFamily LawCourt of AppealsHawkins County
References
31
Case No. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

In Re: Adoption of AMH, a minor Jerry L. Baker and wife, Louise K. Baker v. Shao-Qiang (Jack) He and wife, Qin (Casey) Luo

This appellate case concerns the termination of parental rights for Chinese immigrant biological parents (the Hes) to their minor child, A.M.H. The Hes, facing financial difficulties and immigration issues, initially placed A.M.H. with foster parents (the Bakers), eventually agreeing to a juvenile court order transferring custody and guardianship. Despite continued visits, the Hes paid no child support. After a confrontation and cessation of visits, the Bakers petitioned for adoption and termination of parental rights due to abandonment. The Hes sought to regain custody, citing cultural factors and temporary intent. The Chancery Court terminated the Hes' parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of willful failure to visit but reversed the finding of willful failure to support and the application of other termination grounds, while upholding the termination based on abandonment by willful failure to visit and the child's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeAdoption ProceedingsAbandonment (Child)Willful Failure to VisitWillful Failure to SupportImmigration StatusDue ProcessSuperior Parental Rights DoctrineConsent Order
References
106
Showing 1-10 of 5,101 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