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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Judge Graffeo dissents from a decision concerning the interpretation of New York Election Law § 11-302, which governs the use of special ballots by poll workers. The dissent argues that the statute's provisions, stating that special ballots should be provided "not earlier than two weeks before the election" and cast "not later than the close of the polls on election day," imply a requirement that these ballots also be cast no earlier than two weeks prior to the election. The Appellate Division, however, concluded there was no violation when ballots were both distributed and cast more than two weeks before the election, allowing them to be canvassed. Graffeo contends that this interpretation warrants further appellate review due to conflicting lower court conclusions and the importance of strict compliance with election procedures, referencing previous rulings on absentee balloting.

Statutory InterpretationElection LawSpecial BallotsPoll WorkersVoting ProceduresBallot CanvassingAppellate ReviewStrict ComplianceDissenting OpinionNew York Election Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This memorandum addresses an appeal by Paul G. Carey concerning a lower court order that partially granted a petition to count three absentee ballots for petitioner Alessio in a town justice election. The Onondaga County Board of Elections had initially invalidated these ballots. The appellate court, after a remittal from the Court of Appeals, reversed the lower court's decision. The court emphasized strict compliance with Election Law, determining that the absentee ballots were void due to irregular markings outside the voting squares, which could potentially identify voters. Additionally, a cross-claim regarding other invalidated affidavit ballots was dismissed for procedural reasons, although the court noted those ballots likely should have been counted due to ministerial error.

Absentee BallotsElection LawVoter MarkingsBallot InvalidityAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewElection IntegrityIrregular MarksTown Justice ElectionNew York Election Law
References
14
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appellate decision concerns two related proceedings initiated by Craig M. Johnson and Jay Jacobs following a 2010 general election for State Senator in New York's 7th Senatorial District. The petitioners sought to review the validity of various ballots and compel a manual audit of voter verifiable records. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied a manual audit and made rulings on specific challenged ballots. On appeal, the court dismissed appeals from interim decisions but modified the final order. The appellate court directed the Nassau County Board of Elections to cast and canvass certain absentee ballots (exhibits 33, 154, 166) while prohibiting the casting of others (exhibits 8, 127, 182, 183). The denial of the manual audit by the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Election LawBallot AuditAbsentee BallotsVoter Verifiable RecordsGeneral ElectionState SenatorNassau County ElectionsJudicial ReviewElection ContestBallot Canvassing
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Taylor Ted Emery and Claude Bellar contested the August 1978 elections for Sheriff and Fourth District County Commission positions in Robertson County. The Chancellor initially found irregularities but believed they didn't affect the outcome for the Sheriff's race or one County Commissioner, though a supplemental opinion later ordered a new election for the second Commissioner. On appeal, the Supreme Court identified numerous violations of absentee voting statutes and inconsistencies in the lower court's rulings. The court determined that the extent of the irregularities, including the personal participation of the incumbent Sheriff in handling absentee ballot applications, rendered both the Sheriff's election and all Fourth District County Commission elections incurably uncertain. As a result, all contested elections were voided, and the respective offices declared vacant, with costs assigned to the Robertson County Election Commission.

election lawvoter irregularitiesabsentee votingelection fraud opportunityjudicial review of electionscounty government electionssheriff electionTennessee Supreme Courtstatutory violationsincurable uncertainty
References
12
Case No. 01-23-00921-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2026

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case is an appeal from a final judgment in an election contest for the 189th District Court in Harris County, Texas. Appellant Erin Elizabeth Lunceford challenged the trial court's judgment denying her contest and declaring Tamika Craft the winner of the 2022 general election. Lunceford alleged various irregularities, including illegal votes, uncounted legal votes, and mistakes by election officials, primarily focusing on ballot paper shortages, incomplete reasonable impediment declarations (RIDs), and voters on the suspense list. The trial court found 2779 "affected votes" in the contested race, which slightly exceeded Craft's 2743-vote margin of victory. However, the trial court concluded this number was "not large enough to put the true outcome in doubt." The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Lunceford failed to conclusively establish that the alleged irregularities materially affected the election's outcome.

Election ContestAppellate JurisdictionVoter IrregularitiesBallot Paper ShortagesReasonable Impediment DeclarationSuspense List VotersCountywide Polling Place ProgramTrial Court JudgmentBurden of ProofClear and Convincing Evidence
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case consolidates two Election Law proceedings initiated by candidates Richard J. Smith and Roseanne Sullivan for the Orange County 18th District county legislator seat, challenging various ballots after a close election. Sullivan sought to nullify two ballots due to extraneous marks, which the court denied, ruling they should be counted. Smith challenged several categories of ballots: three based on residency (withdrawn), six absentee/special ballots due to incomplete applications (granted), four due to handwriting discrepancies (denied), and 27 affidavit ballots (withdrawn). The court also denied Smith's request to allow 26 voters, who received incorrect ballots at the Bullville firehouse and did not return to cast affidavit ballots, to vote post-election, citing a lack of judicial authority to extend voting. The court highlighted the limitations of its power under Election Law Article 16, distinguishing the case from scenarios involving already cast ballots in incorrect districts.

Ballot ChallengesAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsVoter DisenfranchisementExtraneous MarksHandwriting AnalysisPoll Worker ErrorAffidavit BallotsOrange County ElectionsJudicial Authority
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 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