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. 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
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. W2017-00068-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

In Re Miracle M.

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed a termination of parental rights case involving Father Jeremiah M. and his two minor children, Miracle M. and Jerenikkia M., originally heard in Shelby County Juvenile Court. The trial court had terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support, willful failure to visit, and persistence of conditions. The appellate court reversed the ground of persistence of conditions, determining it was inapplicable because the children were not removed from Father's home. However, the court affirmed the termination based on Father's willful failure to support and visit the children and also upheld the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentChild SupportVisitation RightsWillful NeglectBest Interest of ChildJuvenile LawAppellate ReviewChild CustodyTennessee Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
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. W2017-00491-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

In Re Catherine J.

This is an appeal regarding the termination of Father Clyde J.'s parental rights to his minor child, Catherine J. The Shelby County Juvenile Court initially placed Catherine into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services (DCS) due to Father's improper guardianship. Subsequently, DCS filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights, which the trial court granted based on findings of abandonment due to Father's willful failure to visit and support the child, and his wanton disregard for her welfare prior to incarceration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Father was provided sufficient notice of the consequences of abandonment, his failures to visit and support were willful, and his pre-incarceration conduct demonstrated a wanton disregard for the child's welfare. The appellate court also confirmed the validity of the special judge's authority and the notice of appeal, upholding the termination of Father's parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentWillful Failure to SupportWillful Failure to VisitWanton DisregardIncarcerationBest Interest of the ChildAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court AppealDependency Neglect
References
41
Case No. 02-12-00318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Will Williams v. America First Lloyds Insurance

Will Williams appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to America First Lloyds Insurance regarding his workers' compensation claim. Williams challenged a 0% impairment rating for a workplace injury, contending it should be 19%. The trial court granted summary judgment based on Williams's failure to respond to requests for admissions, which were subsequently deemed admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no violation of due process rights, as Williams demonstrated a callous disregard for responding to the requests and provided no good cause for his inaction or evidence of fraud.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingDeemed AdmissionsDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTexas LawCivil ProcedureHernia Injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Wills

The case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of attorney Don Wills, who was sued for legal malpractice by Yuman Black. Black's original worker's compensation claim was dismissed in November 1982 due to Wills' failure to appear for trial. Black subsequently filed a malpractice suit against Wills in April 1985, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty. Wills sought summary judgment, arguing the two-year statute of limitations applied, which the appellate court affirmed. The court ruled that legal malpractice actions are tortious in nature and subject to a two-year statute of limitations, and Black failed to timely plead or prove facts for the discovery rule to apply. Black's motion for a new trial based on 'newly discovered evidence' was also denied due to lack of due diligence.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleTort LawContract LawGross NegligenceBreach of ContractBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentAppeal
References
27
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,355 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