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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. M2016-00083-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Vernon Lockhart v. Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Safety

This appeal arises from a civil forfeiture. Vernon Lockhart was charged and later convicted on a number of criminal counts related to the distribution of large amounts of marijuana. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security declared as forfeited certain of Lockhart's properties alleged to be derived from illegal drug transactions. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the Department by a preponderance of the evidence, a decision which was affirmed on appeal by the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Lockhart appeals to this Court, arguing that the evidence used against him should have been suppressed and that the ALJ and Trial Court erred by failing to conduct an independent analysis of his suppression issue. The Court of Appeals holds that the ALJ's order of forfeiture was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Lockhart from re-litigating the suppression issue. The judgment of the Trial Court upholding the ALJ's forfeiture order is affirmed.

Civil ForfeitureDrug TraffickingCollateral EstoppelSuppression of EvidenceExclusionary RulePreponderance of EvidenceAsset ForfeitureCriminal ConvictionAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. F87-95754-MK
Regular Panel Decision

Ex parte Chaney

Steven Mark Chaney, convicted of murder, was granted post-conviction habeas corpus relief. The Court found that new scientific advancements discredited the bitemark comparison evidence, which was central to his original conviction. Additionally, the State utilized false evidence, including misrepresented bitemark probability and an altered opinion on wound aging. Significant Brady violations were identified, such as the suppression of a negative blood test on Chaney's shoes, the lack of blood evidence found during a property search, and a key witness's inconsistent statements. Consequently, the Court determined that no reasonable juror would have convicted Chaney in light of this newly discovered and suppressed evidence, setting aside his conviction.

MurderPost-conviction reliefHabeas corpusBitemark analysis discreditedForensic odontologyFalse evidenceBrady violationActual innocence claimExpert testimonyCircumstantial evidence
References
35
Case No. M2012-00155-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

State of Tennessee v. Stephen Baker

Stephen Dewayne Baker appealed his convictions for first degree murder, felony murder, aggravated robbery, arson, and tampering with evidence, resulting in a life sentence plus eighteen years. He challenged the denial of a change of venue, the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained via search warrants and consent, and several evidentiary rulings concerning drug use, domestic violence, and a victim's photograph. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgments, finding no abuse of discretion in denying a change of venue or the motion to suppress, and upholding the admissibility of the contested evidence. The court also concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to support all convictions.

Criminal LawMurderFelony MurderAggravated RobberyArsonTampering with EvidenceAppealSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressSearch Warrant Validity
References
70
Case No. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Buckman

The defendant moved for suppression of physical evidence, suppression of statements, and inspection of Grand Jury minutes. The court criticized the District Attorney's affidavit for lacking factual support. The motion for a suppression hearing concerning physical evidence was granted. However, the court denied the motion for a Huntley hearing due to the defendant's failure to provide sworn factual allegations. The request to inspect Grand Jury minutes was also denied, as the motion papers did not meet the statutory requirements for showing reasonable cause.

Criminal Procedure LawPenal LawSuppression HearingGrand Jury MinutesHuntley HearingPhysical EvidenceStatementsIndictmentDangerous DrugAffidavit
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lattarulo

Defendant William Lattarulo was charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment following a building wall collapse at his construction site, which resulted in a worker's death. The court conducted a hearing on the defendant's motions to suppress statements and physical evidence. The defendant argued that his statements were obtained through an illegal automobile stop, without Miranda warnings, and in violation of his right to counsel. The court found no illegal stop or seizure, no custody requiring Miranda warnings, and no unequivocal request for counsel. Additionally, the physical evidence was obtained through a valid search warrant or voluntary consent. Therefore, the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.

Suppression MotionManslaughterReckless EndangermentBuilding CollapseConstruction AccidentMiranda WarningsRight to CounselNon-Custodial InterviewSearch WarrantConsent to Search
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Mason

Defendant Donald Mason was indicted on federal charges including firearm and drug possession. He filed a motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, arguing violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court determined that the initial encounter with NYPD officers in a public housing building, where Mason was a non-resident, was consensual. His subsequent attempt to flee, coupled with evidence of trespassing, provided officers with probable cause for arrest. The court denied the motion to suppress physical evidence and statements on Fourth Amendment grounds, finding the arrest and search lawful. Additionally, Mason's post-arrest statements were admissible as spontaneous utterances, not resulting from custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warnings.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentMotion to SuppressProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionConsensual EncountersInvestigative DetentionsArrestTrespassingCriminal Procedure
References
35
Case No. E2008-02132-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2010

State of Tennessee v. Joe Maine

Joe Maine was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder of Amy Lynn King in 1997, receiving a life sentence without parole. He appealed on several grounds, including the denial of his motion to suppress, the publication of inadmissible photographs, the use of the victim's skull as an exhibit, the sufficiency of premeditation evidence, and his sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the judgments. The court found no errors in the trial court's rulings on the motion to suppress, the non-declaration of a mistrial, the use of the skull as evidence, or the sufficiency of the evidence for premeditation. The sentencing decision, which included two aggravating factors outweighing one mitigating factor (the defendant's youth), was also upheld.

Criminal LawFirst Degree MurderConspiracy to MurderSufficiency of EvidencePremeditationMotion to SuppressMiranda RightsJuvenile InterrogationAdmissibility of EvidenceDemonstrative Evidence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Tarazon-Silva

The defendants, Manuel Jose Tarazon-Silva and Ricardo Belkotosky-Gutierrez, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. The Court ruled that law enforcement agents lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial Terry stops of the defendants' vehicles, thus suppressing all evidence derived from those stops, including identities, statements, vehicle searches, and key matching. However, for the subsequent searches of the Pelhem residence, Bay City Place residence, and Rojas Drive warehouse, the Court found the "good faith" exception inapplicable due to an AUSA's involvement in preparing the warrant affidavit. Despite this, after excising the tainted information, the Court determined that the affidavits for these searches still contained sufficient probable cause, primarily supported by a reliable confidential informant, agent surveillance, and a narcotics-sniffing canine's alert at the Pelhem residence's dryer vent, which was not considered a search as it occurred outside the curtilage. Therefore, the defendants' motion to suppress was partially granted for the vehicle stops but denied for the residence and warehouse searches.

Motion to SuppressFourth AmendmentReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseExclusionary RuleGood Faith ExceptionTerry StopDrug EnforcementCanine SniffCurtilage
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 15,134 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