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. 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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

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. E2012-00777-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

Will J. Milton v. Saeed Etezadi, M.D.

This case concerns a medical malpractice action filed by Will J. Milton against Saeed Etezadi, M.D., challenging the sufficiency of service of process. The initial lawsuit, filed in 2003, was voluntarily dismissed by Milton after Etezadi raised improper service as an affirmative defense. Milton re-filed the action, but the trial court again found no proper service in either case and dismissed the claims with prejudice due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. On appeal, Milton argued that Etezadi waived the service defense and that the trial court erred in its finding regarding the second action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Milton had waived his waiver argument at the trial level and that service in the original action was indeed ineffective, thus precluding reliance on the saving statute and barring the re-filed action.

Medical MalpracticeService of ProcessAffirmative DefenseWaiverStatute of LimitationsStatute of ReposeRule 8.03 Tennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 4.04 Tennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12.02 Tennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate Procedure
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,883 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