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

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. 12-08-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2010

State

Billy Joe Burnett appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, which followed his consent to a protective order. The protective order was sought by the Angelina county attorney on behalf of Sylvia Leonora Holst and issued on June 12, 2008. Burnett subsequently filed multiple motions for new trial, alleging involuntary consent and improper communication by the assistant county attorney. The trial court ultimately overruled his motion on July 18, 2008. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Burnett's failure to provide a complete reporter's record necessary for reviewing the trial court's consideration of evidence.

Motion for New TrialProtective OrderAbuse of DiscretionIncomplete RecordAppellate ProcedureConsent JudgmentEvidentiary HearingAffidavitTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
25
Case No. 13-01-00628-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Bryan D. Bachus v. Sharla D. Bachus

This case concerns an appeal from a divorce decree based on a settlement agreement between Bryan D. Bachus (Appellant) and Sharla D. Bachus (Appellee). Appellant contested the decree's validity and the denial of his motion for new trial, citing newly discovered evidence of appellee's alleged drug abuse, withdrawal of consent to the agreement, lack of co-counsel's authority, and discrepancies between the settlement terms and the final decree. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial, ruling that the trial court rendered judgment on the settlement agreement prior to the attempted revocation of consent. However, the appellate court found that the divorce decree's provisions for child possession and visitation deviated from the parties' settlement agreement. Consequently, the court reversed that specific portion of the decree and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to align the possession order with the original settlement agreement, while affirming all other aspects of the divorce decree.

DivorceChild CustodySettlement AgreementMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceConsent JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawChild Support
References
17
Case No. 04-09-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

In Re Am

The maternal aunt and grandmother sought to adopt three children after the biological parents' rights were terminated. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of standing because the petition was filed more than 90 days after parental rights termination, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (managing conservator) did not consent. Appellants argued equitable estoppel, wrongful withholding of consent, and the unconstitutionality of the 90-day limitation in the Texas Family Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that equity cannot confer standing where statutory requirements are not met and that the 90-day deadline in Section 102.006 is constitutional. The court also clarified that Section 162.010 (allowing waiver of consent for good cause) does not apply until standing under Chapter 102 is established, and Section 102.006 does not require good faith for consent refusal. A concurring opinion urged legislative amendment to Section 102.006(b) to include a good cause component for consent refusal.

AdoptionStandingParental Rights TerminationFamily LawDue ProcessEquitable EstoppelManaging ConservatorshipStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJurisdiction
References
45
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
Case No. 06-09-00200-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2010

Mary C. Walker v. Dr. Charles N. Thornton, Collom and Carney Clinic Association Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston, Texas, D/B/A St. Michael Health Care Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas

Daniel Dongrele Lindley appealed the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision for two cases of attempted capital murder. He challenged the trial court's judgment, arguing the State's failure to provide written consent for his jury trial waiver rendered it void, that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation, and that the supervision condition regarding proximity to victims was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings, finding that the State's written consent was not a jurisdictional prerequisite, the evidence was sufficient to prove a violation of the 1000-foot no-contact condition, and Lindley could not challenge the condition's vagueness for the first time on appeal.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewDeferred AdjudicationCommunity Supervision RevocationJury Trial WaiverDue ProcessSufficiency of EvidenceTerms of SupervisionAttempted Capital MurderTexas Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fafinski v. Reliance Insurance

In a jury trial, a plaintiff sued an insurance company for disclaiming no-fault coverage, asserting the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the automobile accident. The trial court excluded evidence of a non-consensual blood-alcohol test, which showed plaintiff was intoxicated, based on lack of consent and non-compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. The defendant insurance company appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that blood-alcohol test results, if properly founded, are admissible in civil cases to prove intoxication for no-fault policy exclusions, regardless of express consent or compliance with criminal procedural requirements. The case was remanded for a new trial.

IntoxicationNo-fault coverageBlood-alcohol test admissibilityPolicy exclusionAutomobile accidentCivil evidenceVehicle and Traffic LawInsurance LawConsent requirementsHospital records
References
15
Case No. 2008-01939-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Teresa Gard v. Dennis Harris, M.D.

Teresa Gard filed a complaint against Dennis Harris, M.D., and HealthStar Physicians, P.C., alleging false light invasion of privacy and defamation. The claims arose after Dr. Harris sent a letter concerning Ms. Gard's medical condition, which she considered defamatory, to several parties involved in her workers' compensation case. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Ms. Gard had consented to the disclosure by signing a consent form. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Dr. Harris's disclosure of Ms. Gard's protected health information was permissible under HIPAA for treatment purposes and did not exceed the scope of her consent, thereby barring her claims.

DefamationFalse Light Invasion of PrivacyMedical ConfidentialityHIPAASummary JudgmentConsentPhysician-Patient RelationshipWorkers' Compensation ClaimProtected Health InformationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Showing 1-10 of 14,695 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