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. 137
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. Signal Mountain Nursery, L.P.

Plaintiff Yvonne M. Browne sought a new trial after an unfavorable jury verdict in her hostile work environment case against Signal Mountain Nursery and its owners, David and Laurel Steele. Her motion was based on several alleged judicial errors, primarily challenging the court's jury instruction on the definition of a "supervisor" for Title VII vicarious liability. Other grounds included rulings on evidence concerning her prior sexual behavior, employment applications, and alleged theft, as well as procedural issues with voir dire and a Batson challenge. The District Court meticulously reviewed each argument, ultimately denying the motion for a new trial. The court affirmed its interpretation of "supervisor" based on the authority to effect tangible employment actions and upheld its discretionary evidentiary and procedural decisions, finding no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff.

Hostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIMotion for New TrialJury InstructionSupervisor DefinitionEvidentiary RulingsSexual HarassmentVicarious LiabilityFed.R.Civ.P. 59Fed.R.Evid. 412
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. M2012-02263-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Ronald W. Damon

Ronald W. Damon was convicted in Rutherford County Circuit Court of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective seventy-three years. On appeal, Damon raised multiple issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal or a new trial, alleged errors in trial procedure (like an eight-day break), exclusion of 9-1-1 operator testimony, admission of an incriminating letter, admission of prior bad acts evidence, playing portions of his pretrial video statement, limitations on cross-examination, and various sentencing errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, there were no reversible errors in trial procedure or evidence admission, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.

KidnappingRobberyBurglaryConspiracySufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ReviewConsecutive SentencesDangerous OffenderAlibi DefenseHearsay Exception
References
47
Case No. 02-20-00161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2020

in Re Caprice Garcia

This case involves Caprice Garcia, a criminal defense attorney, seeking mandamus relief against an order to pay $3,600 in attorney's fees to Tyler Melton and Proclaim Roofing, LLC. The fee award was related to a trial subpoena duces tecum issued in a criminal case, which the trial court deemed an abuse of process due to short notice. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked statutory authority under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or Article 39.14(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to issue the order. Furthermore, even if inherent authority existed, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings of bad faith and significant interference with core functions. As Garcia, a non-party to the criminal case, had no adequate remedy by appeal, the Court conditionally granted mandamus relief, ordering the trial court to vacate its order.

Mandamus reliefAttorney's feesSubpoena duces tecumAbuse of discoveryCriminal procedureNon-party sanctionsTrial court authorityInherent powersStatutory constructionTexas appellate courts
References
28
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Weeks Marine, Inc.

Jose Jimenez was injured while employed by Weeks Marine and subsequently signed a Claim Arbitration Agreement. Despite the agreement, Jimenez sued Weeks Marine under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Weeks Marine sought to compel arbitration, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Levi Benton, denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Weeks Marine then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court. The appellate court, in this opinion, reviewed whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and whether the trial court abused its discretion. The court determined the agreement is subject to the FAA and found the trial court misapplied FELA Section 5 and related cases. It also found the agreement not substantively unconscionable. However, regarding procedural unconscionability, the court concluded that the issue was for the trial court to decide, and if an implicit finding was made without an evidentiary hearing, it was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition to vacate the trial court's orders but denied the request to compel arbitration, pending a proper evidentiary hearing on procedural unconscionability.

MandamusArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Jones ActFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)SeamanEmployment ContractUnconscionabilityProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
38
Case No. M2012-02249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2014

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Cohen v. Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian

Heather Michele Cohen and Adam Lee Cohen appealed the trial court's dismissal of their defamation lawsuit against Trisha Clarke and Michelle Julian. The trial court had granted motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) and for discovery abuses under Rule 41.02, citing ex parte communication and subpoena violations. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by dismissing the case while a motion to amend was pending and by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal for procedural violations without sufficient explanation or consideration of lesser alternatives. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Defamation LawsuitProcedural DismissalDiscovery SanctionsEx Parte CommunicationsFailure to State a ClaimMotion to AmendAbuse of Discretion ReviewAppellate ProcedurePro Se RepresentationCivil Procedure Rules
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2007

Drake v. Woods

Paris Drake petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his New York state conviction for Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. Drake argued that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by refusing to recall a witness (Carl Fortner) and by not inspecting a witness's (Witness A) psychiatric records or allowing cross-examination on her mental health. The court first addressed procedural default, finding that state appellate courts did not clearly rely on procedural bars. On the merits, the court denied both grounds for relief, concluding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not deprive Drake of a fundamentally fair trial or his confrontation rights, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.

Habeas CorpusSixth AmendmentDue ProcessConfrontation ClauseEyewitness IdentificationPsychiatric RecordsCross-ExaminationProcedural DefaultEvidentiary RulingsAssault First Degree
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 16,700 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