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. M2007-01799-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2008

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves a will contest concerning the estate of Lucille Ray. The heirs of her predeceased son, Howard Ray, challenged her will, alleging it was procured through undue influence by her daughters, Magdalene Long and Joyce Hess, who were beneficiaries. After a jury trial, the jury found that the will was not a product of undue influence and was valid. The son's children appealed, arguing a presumption of undue influence due to a confidential relationship between Magdalene Long and Lucille Ray. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that material evidence supported the finding and that any presumption of undue influence was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, including independent advice from the drafting attorney.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityConfidential RelationshipJury VerdictAppellate ReviewMaterial EvidencePresumption of Undue InfluenceIndependent AdviceEstate Law
References
12
Case No. E2020-00723-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2021

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal concerning allegations of undue influence in a gift of $176,000 from the decedent, Jean Ellis, to her niece, Christina L. Duggan. The plaintiffs, Jean's grandsons and residuary beneficiaries, claimed Christina, who held power of attorney for Jean, exerted undue influence over her. The trial court found a confidential relationship and multiple suspicious circumstances, leading to a judgment against Christina for $176,000, but denied attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the finding of undue influence and the judgment against Christina, reversing the denial of attorney fees and remanding for a determination of a reasonable award.

Undue InfluenceFiduciary DutyPower of Attorney AbuseGift TransactionElder AbuseEstate PlanningBreach of Fiduciary DutyConfidential RelationshipAppellate ReviewAttorney Fees
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an intra-family dispute over the validity of Porter B. Johns, Sr.'s will, which left his farm to one of his nine children, Mahlon Johns. Six of the decedent's other children contested the will in Maury County, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Mahlon Johns. A jury found that a confidential relationship existed and the will was procured by undue influence, leading to its invalidation. Mahlon Johns's estate appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for the jury's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the record contained material evidence to support the jury's verdict regarding the confidential relationship and undue influence.

Undue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityConfidential RelationshipWill ContestElder AbuseFamily DisputeProbate LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMaterial Evidence
References
37
Case No. W2017-00551-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. M2002-02208-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Administrator Ad Litem Gloria Jean Evins appealed the trial court's decision regarding the competency and alleged undue influence over Alvie Puckett when he executed a deed of real property to his daughter, Helen Puckett. Alvie Puckett sustained a severe head injury in 1989 and later developed dementia. The estate sought to invalidate the deed, arguing he was incompetent and unduly influenced at the time of execution. The trial court found Alvie Puckett competent and not unduly influenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings, noting the lack of contemporary medical evaluations directly addressing Alvie Puckett's mental state at the time of the transaction. The court also found no evidence to establish a confidential relationship or direct undue influence by Helen Puckett.

CompetencyUndue InfluenceDeed ValidityProperty ConveyanceMental CapacityDementiaSkull FractureFiduciary RelationshipAppellate ReviewStandard of Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Theodore (Ted) Panek's will, which bequeathed a significant portion of his estate to the proponent, was challenged by eight objectants on grounds of undue influence. A jury in Surrogate’s Court found that while Ted had testamentary capacity, he was subjected to undue influence by the proponent, leading to the denial of probate. On appeal, the court affirmed the Surrogate’s decree. The appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding, noting the proponent's financial motive, her control over Ted's environment and finances, his fragile health, and her active efforts to isolate him and pressure him into making the will against his prior resistance.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityProbate LawEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtCircumstantial EvidenceFiduciary RelationshipElder Abuse
References
9
Case No. M2000-03191-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This appeal concerns a dispute over a $12,000 life insurance policy between the estranged husband and brother of the deceased, Eleanor Rawlings. Arthur L. Rawlings, Jr. initially sued after Eleanor changed the beneficiary from him to her brother, Darden Holt. The Circuit Court for Davidson County ruled in favor of Mr. Rawlings, finding Eleanor lacked mental capacity and was subjected to undue influence by Mr. Holt. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision, concluding that the evidence did not support findings of lack of capacity or undue influence. The case was remanded with directions to award the life insurance proceeds to Darden Holt.

Mental CapacityUndue InfluenceLife Insurance BeneficiaryContract LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofContractual CapacitySenile DementiaDepressionPower of Attorney
References
62
Case No. 12-09-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Beverly Ann Corey and Stephen Leonard Warren appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Claude Michael Rightmire in their contest of Ernest H. Warren's Last Will and Testament. The appellants argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Ernest's testamentary capacity and Martha Jo Warren's undue influence. The appellate court determined that the trial court improperly granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the issue of testamentary capacity, but properly granted summary judgment on undue influence. The court modified the judgment to reflect a traditional summary judgment on testamentary capacity and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Estate LawWill ContestSummary JudgmentTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceAppellate ReviewProbate LawTexas Court of AppealsEvidentiary RulingsDe Novo Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Christopher Fasulo, administrator c.t.a. of Pauline DelGatto’s estate, appealed a Surrogate’s Court decree in Kings County, which, upon a jury verdict, favored Nora Bradley regarding the title to real property. The decedent, Pauline DelGatto, had executed a trust document and deed conveying her house to Nora Bradley just weeks before her death, with Bradley as trustee and beneficiary. Fasulo alleged the decedent lacked mental capacity and was subjected to undue influence. The jury found that Fasulo failed to sustain his burden of proof on both claims. The appellate court affirmed the decree, ruling that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof for lack of mental competence or undue influence, especially since the transaction was supervised by an attorney and the circumstances were explained.

Estate lawreal propertyundue influencemental capacityburden of proofjury verdicttrust instrumentdeedattorney-client privilegeSCPA 2103
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 392 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