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. 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. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695) ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696) ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

JERRY P. WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for failing to provide a computer printout of benefits. SCIF objected, asserting the printout was available at a prior Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) with a former attorney. Although the printout was not explicitly mentioned in the MSC pre-trial statement or offered at trial, the WCAB accepted SCIF's representation of its availability. Consequently, finding no willful failure to comply with a regulatory obligation, the WCAB dismissed the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention To Impose SanctionsWCAB Rule 10607computer printout of benefitsMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Desiree A. Mercadopre-trial conference statementproposed exhibitsEAMSwillful failure to comply
References
0
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. ADJ7403543
Regular
Nov 20, 2012

CRESENCIO AYALA vs. ALABAMA METAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it sought to challenge a notice of intent to dismiss, not a final order, and was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the applicant's attorney. This action is due to the filing of a frivolous and unverified petition without merit. Sanctions will be imposed unless the attorney demonstrates good cause to the contrary.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissLack of ProsecutionUnverified PetitionFinal OrderLabor Code § 5900Labor Code § 5902RemovalLabor Code § 5813
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bell v. Utica Corp.

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for neck and shoulder injuries sustained during a work-related altercation with a supervisor. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, concluding claimant's injuries stemmed from his willful intention to injure the supervisor and dismissed the claim. On appeal, the court found this determination improper, noting the absence of evidence for purely personal animosities and that initial aggression alone does not establish willful intent. The court emphasized that work-related altercations are generally compensable unless there's clear proof of a willful and deliberate intent to harm, beyond impulsive action. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's findings.

Workplace Injury ClaimEmployee DisputeIntentional Injury DefenseBenefit Eligibility DisputeAppellate Review of Board DecisionRemand for Further ProceedingsEvidentiary ReviewInitial Aggressor DoctrineScope of Employment AnalysisLegal Presumptions
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,809 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