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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Howard

The defendant, James T. Howard, sought the expungement of his arrest records related to a 1999 arrest for impersonating a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 912. Although the initial indictment was dismissed by the government in 2000 due to concerns about the credibility of key witnesses who had smoked marijuana, Howard argued that this dismissal reflected his innocence and that the arrest record was impeding his career prospects in law enforcement. The court, however, denied the motion, stating that expungement is reserved for "extreme circumstances" not met by Howard's claims of employment difficulty, which were deemed conclusory. Furthermore, the court found that sufficient probable cause existed for the initial arrest, as the witnesses' statements, though later questioned for credibility, were lucid at the time and supported by other evidence, thus demonstrating no constitutional infirmity in the arrest itself.

ExpungementArrest RecordProbable CauseImpersonationFederal OfficerWitness CredibilityDismissed IndictmentJudicial DiscretionEmployment BarriersBounty Hunter
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

Lewis v. Caputo

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a false arrest claim. The plaintiff was arrested for criminal possession of a stolen laptop after a coworker recorded incriminating statements. The New York County District Attorney charged the plaintiff, but the charge was later dismissed. The plaintiff then sued Joseph Caputo, a deputy inspector general, for false arrest and was awarded $50,000 by a jury. The dissenting judge argues that the arrest was supported by probable cause based on circumstantial evidence, including the plaintiff's recorded conversation expressing anger at "snitches" and his tearing up a written statement. The dissenting opinion asserts that the jury's verdict should be reversed and the complaint dismissed because the evidence established probable cause as a matter of law.

False ArrestProbable CauseStolen PropertyCriminal PossessionCircumstantial EvidencePolice InvestigationJury VerdictCivil SuitNew York CountyDissenting Opinion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. 05-15-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Estate of David Anthony Toarmina

This document is an 'Agreed Correction of Reporter’s Record' filed by Danyel Moffett, Appellant, and Vincent Toarmina, Appellee. The parties agree to correct the Reporter’s Record by including two exhibits, Def. Ex. 29 and Def. Ex. 30, which are Charles Vincent Toarmina’s Response to Request for Disclosure and Charles Vincent Toarmina’s First Supplemental Response to Request for Disclosure, respectively. These exhibits were admitted at trial but not included in the original record. The parties agree that these documents are true and correct copies and should be made part of the Reporter’s Record for all purposes.

Appellate ProcedureCorrection of RecordExhibitsDiscoveryTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProbate CourtEstate LawDisclosure RequestAppellate Court FilingAgreement of Parties
References
7
Case No. 02-21-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Todd Gallaher v. Denton Media Company, Inc. D/B/A Denton Record Chronicle

Appellant Todd Gallaher, a political consultant, sued Appellee Denton Media Company, Inc. d/b/a Denton Record-Chronicle for defamation, alleging libelous statements in a series of articles. The articles detailed allegations of Gallaher's misconduct during the 2008 primary election, claiming he was "charged," "prosecuted," and "sentenced" for misrepresentation of identity. Gallaher also contended defamation regarding statements that he declined to comment for the articles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Newspaper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that some claims were time-barred, statements about charges were protected by the statutory defense of truth for public concern, and statements about declining comment were not defamatory.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,136 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