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. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court judgment that reversed DPS's determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The appellee had been convicted in Massachusetts in 1993 for "indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years of age." DPS contended that the elements of the Massachusetts offense were "substantially similar" to Texas's sexual assault or indecency with a child, thus mandating registration. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts crime are not "substantially similar" to the Texas offenses, citing significant differences in the nature of sexual conduct, protected interests, seriousness, and potential punishments. The court also addressed the exclusion of a police report by the trial court.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Substantially Similar ElementsMassachusetts LawTexas Penal CodeSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryCriminal AttemptStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03119, 2021-00331, 2021-00339, B-10860-18, B-10861-18
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

Matter of Grace E. W.-F. (Zanovia W.)

In related proceedings, the mother appealed from two orders of fact-finding and disposition from the Family Court, Kings County, which had found she abandoned her children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, reversed these orders, holding that the petitioner, New York Foundling Hospital, failed to establish abandonment by clear and convincing evidence. The court highlighted the mother's consistent efforts, including visits, participation in family gatherings, purchases for the children, and communications with the caseworker, as evidence demonstrating an intent not to abandon her children. Consequently, the appellate court denied the petitions to terminate parental rights against the mother.

Parental RightsChild WelfareAbandonmentFamily CourtAppellate DivisionFoster CareSocial Services LawParental IntentGuardianshipAdoption
References
4
Case No. 2-02-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2003

in Re Matthew T. Hinterlong

Matthew T. Hinterlong, the relator, sought mandamus relief against a trial court's order denying his motion to compel discovery of a student informant's identity. The informant's tip led to Hinterlong's expulsion from Arlington Martin High School (AMHS) for alleged alcohol possession. Hinterlong contended that the crime stoppers privilege did not apply or was unconstitutional as applied. The Court of Appeals determined that while the AMHS program qualified as a crime stoppers organization and the tip was privileged, the absolute application of the privilege in this civil case violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision, especially given Hinterlong's acquittal and prima facie evidence of being 'set up'. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the tipster's information under Texas Rule of Evidence 508 to balance anonymity with Hinterlong's right to redress.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeCrime Stoppers PrivilegeOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionZero Tolerance PolicyStudent ExpulsionMalicious ProsecutionDefamationNegligence
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Southlake and its Chief of Police, Wade Goolsby. Steele alleged he was retaliated against for whistleblowing about misconduct within the police department, including alleged crimes, an improper citation quota system, and interference with cases. After anonymously reporting these issues and then sending a second email using a retired officer's name to divert an investigation into the anonymous emails, Steele was terminated. The city maintained that he was fired for untruthfulness and deception during the internal investigation, a violation of departmental policy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the city had proven an affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely for his untruthfulness, irrespective of his whistleblower activities.

Whistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawGovernmental ImmunityPublic PolicyPolice DepartmentInternal AffairsDisciplinary ActionCredibilityDue ProcessTexas Government Code
References
30
Case No. 07-09-0277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Joseph E. Hancock v. Easwaran P. Variyam

Joseph E. Hancock appealed a defamation judgment in favor of Easwaran P. Variyam. The case stemmed from a letter Hancock wrote to Variyam's superiors and a professional accreditation body, alleging Variyam had a "reputation for lack of veracity" and "deals in half truths." The trial court found these statements to be libel per se, and a jury awarded Variyam $90,000 in actual damages and $85,000 in exemplary damages. Hancock challenged the libel per se finding, the sufficiency of damages evidence, and the admission of an anonymous letter at trial. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the libel per se finding and the damage awards, and deeming any error regarding the anonymous letter harmless.

DefamationLibel per seMental Anguish DamagesReputation DamagesExemplary DamagesMedical ProfessionalsProfessional EthicsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Law
References
71
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24299 [4 Misc 3d 974]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2004

Themed Rests., Inc. v. Zagat Survey, LLC

Themed Restaurants, Inc., operating as Lucky Cheng's, sued Zagat Survey, LLC for libel, trade libel, and negligence, challenging a negative review in the 2004 NYC Restaurant Survey. The plaintiff alleged a 35% business drop post-publication, attributing it to the survey's low food rating and critical anonymous consumer comments about the restaurant's theme and offerings. The court considered whether survey-based reviews, utilizing anonymous opinions and numerical ratings, constituted protected opinion or actionable defamation. Ultimately, the court ruled that the review's statements and ratings were subjective opinions, not false statements of fact, and therefore protected by free speech principles. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to meet the pleading specificity requirement for constitutional malice. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted.

DefamationLibelTrade LibelRestaurant ReviewFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechConstitutional MaliceActual MalicePleading SpecificityConsumer Surveys
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glassdoor, Inc. v. Andra Grp., LP

This case concerns Glassdoor, Inc.'s appeal against a trial court's decision in a Rule 202 pre-suit discovery petition filed by Andra Group, LP. Andra sought to uncover the identities of anonymous users who posted negative reviews on Glassdoor's website, alleging potential claims of defamation and business disparagement. Glassdoor, joined by two anonymous reviewers, moved to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27 (anti-SLAPP), which was denied. The trial court granted Andra's discovery petition, limiting it to specific reviews and statements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the Rule 202 discovery was appropriate, the likely benefits outweighed the burdens, and it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights or violate Chapter 27.

DiscoveryPre-suit DiscoveryAnonymous SpeechDefamationBusiness DisparagementAnti-SLAPPTexas LawRule 202First AmendmentAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 02-11-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, reported alleged misconduct by his department, including issues with case interference and falsifying workers' compensation claims, to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. He also sent anonymous emails to city officials outlining these concerns and later sent a second email falsely claiming to be a retired officer to divert an internal investigation into the anonymous emails. Steele was subsequently fired. He sued the City of Southlake and Chief Wade Goolsby under the Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment and a plea to the jurisdiction to the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the City conclusively proved its affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely due to his untruthfulness and deceptive actions during the internal investigation, regardless of his protected whistleblower reports. The court emphasized the critical importance of truthfulness for police officers.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationTermination of EmploymentPolice MisconductUntruthfulnessDeceptionSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefensePublic EmployeeOfficial Capacity
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 39 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