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
Oct 15, 2010

In Re Keller

This case involves an appeal by Judge Sharon Keller against a Public Warning issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission's warning stemmed from her decision not to keep the clerk's office open past business hours, which impeded a death penalty appeal. While a Special Master recommended no formal action, the Commission issued the warning after formal proceedings. This Special Court of Review concluded that, under Texas law, a public warning cannot be issued following formal proceedings; sanctions are only permissible after informal investigations. Consequently, the court vacated the Commission's order and dismissed the charges against Judge Keller, without commenting on the accusations' merits.

Judicial misconductPublic warningFormal proceedingsInformal proceedingsTexas ConstitutionGovernment CodeDue processJudicial reviewSanctionsCensure
References
33
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00660 [168 AD3d 1339]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Matter of LeSane (Commissioner of Labor)

Robert M. LeSane, a maintenance worker, was terminated from his employment due to chronic tardiness, despite receiving multiple warnings, including a final written warning. He subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on the grounds of misconduct. This decision was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and, later, by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. LeSane appealed the Board's decision, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the ruling, concluding that continued tardiness after prior warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurance benefitsmisconducttardinessprior warningssubstantial evidenceAppellate Divisionjudicial reviewemployer policytermination of employmentadministrative law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. 2023-06-7650
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Salmon, Marsha v. Octapharma Plasma

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville granted Octapharma Plasma's motion to dismiss with prejudice against Marsha Salmon. Ms. Salmon, the employee, failed to comply with multiple court orders, including providing responses to written discovery and identifying medical experts by the set deadlines. She also neglected to file a written response to the dispositive motion, despite explicit warnings from the Court. Citing Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.02(1) and (3) for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, the Court deemed Ms. Salmon's efforts to advance her case insufficient and dismissed the claim with prejudice to its refiling.

Motion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteCompliance with Court OrdersWritten DiscoveryMedical ExpertsImpairment RatingProcedural HistoryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawDismissal with Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Harris

This concurring opinion addresses a defendant's appeal challenging the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of his written confession. The defendant contended that his arrest lacked probable cause and that his confession, given after Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed. The court found that ample probable cause existed, citing the victim's prior statements, diary entries, and other incriminating evidence. While a lower court initially suppressed an apartment confession based on a *Payton v New York* violation, this opinion asserts that the police entry was consensual. Furthermore, it concludes that a subsequent written confession was admissible due to the attenuation of any potential taint from the initial arrest, given the time lapse and rereading of Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's contentions were ultimately deemed without merit.

Probable CauseWarrantless ArrestMiranda RightsConfession AdmissibilityPayton v New YorkFourth AmendmentAttenuation DoctrineVoluntary ConsentCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Yates Services, LLC

Betty Fox, an employee of Yates Services, LLC, working at Nissan, alleged sexual and religious harassment by co-workers. Despite her complaints to supervisors, investigations by Nissan's HR found no corroborating evidence, and Fox was warned about her disruptive behavior. After receiving a verbal warning and a written reminder for inappropriate conduct, Fox was suspended and subsequently terminated in October 2012 for disruptive behavior, following the company's corrective action policy. Fox sued Yates Services, LLC, claiming hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that Fox failed to prove her hostile work environment claim and did not establish that Yates's non-discriminatory reason for her termination was a pretext for retaliation.

Employment LawHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentReligious HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentWorkplace DiscriminationDisruptive BehaviorEmployer Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foust v. Metropolitan Security Services, Inc.

Plaintiff C. Gene Foust filed a civil action against Metropolitan Security Services, Inc., doing business as Walden Security, alleging age-based discrimination and retaliation. Foust claimed violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), stemming from his suspension, a final written warning, and his eventual termination. Walden moved for summary judgment, contending that Foust failed to establish a prima facie case for his discrimination and retaliation claims and could not demonstrate pretext. The court analyzed Foust's claims under the McDonnell Douglas framework, finding that most of his proposed comparators were not similarly situated. Ultimately, the court granted Walden's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Foust's claims after concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence for age discrimination (except for termination), that the final warning was not an adverse action, and that his retaliation claims lacked protected activity or a causal link.

Age DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscrimination LawADEATHRATPPADisparate TreatmentPretext (Law)
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. 01-15-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

in Re Joseph Andre Davis

Joseph Andre Davis, the Appellant, filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, and rehearing en banc with the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. The motion challenges a prior per curiam affirmance concerning a case involving Floyd D. Lopez (Appellee). Davis argues that the court misapprehended critical facts and law, particularly regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the standing of the maternal grandparents for managing conservatorship, and the alleged violation of his fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He requests a written opinion and certification of questions to the Texas Supreme Court, emphasizing the significant precedential implications of the court's decision on parental liberty interests and the uniformity of legal precedents.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingRehearing En BancPer Curiam AffirmanceParental RightsGrandparent ConservatorshipSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingDue ProcessFourteenth Amendment
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. State

The appellant appeals a murder conviction, challenging the admissibility of his written confession and the exclusion of testimony regarding the victim's character. The court found that the warnings provided for the confession complied with Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22(2)(a), despite slight language differences, thus overruling the first point of error. Regarding the character evidence, the court determined it was inadmissible under Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 404(a)(2) due to the absence of any overt aggressive act by the victim. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Murder ConvictionConfession AdmissibilityMiranda WarningsCriminal ProcedureEvidence LawCharacter TraitVictim AggressionVoluntary ManslaughterAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 974 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