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

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madison County Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Chafee v. Felker

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, the father of a son born in 2002, failed to pay $25 per week in child support to Mary Chafee, as mandated by a May 2007 order. The Family Court affirmed the Support Magistrate's finding of willful violation and imposed a sentence of incarceration, conditional upon payment of $3,650 in arrears. The appellate court rejected the respondent's arguments, including his inability to pay due to lack of income and his claim regarding the $500 arrears cap, citing a lack of credible evidence and his failure to seek modification of the original support order. Consequently, the Family Court's determination was affirmed.

Child SupportWillful ViolationArrearsFamily Court ActParental ObligationContempt of CourtAbility to PayModification of SupportAppeal DecisionSupport Magistrate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicoletta v. Hartnett

Petitioner, a contractor operating as Nicoletta Building Contractors, entered into a contract with the Village of Seneca Falls in September 1985 for construction work. In August 1986, an investigation by the Department of Labor revealed that petitioner had underpaid seven employees, violating prevailing wage and supplement requirements under Labor Law § 220. After an administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer's recommendation of willful violation, a 10% interest assessment, and a $1,175 civil penalty was adopted by the respondent. Petitioner challenged this determination regarding three employees, but the court confirmed the respondent's findings, citing substantial evidence and upholding the willfulness of the violation and the imposed penalties. The petition was dismissed.

Underpayment of wagesPrevailing wageLabor Law violationsWillful violationCivil penaltyAdministrative hearingJudicial reviewArticle 78Employer liabilityEmployee rights
References
3
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. 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

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,626 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