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

Rubackin v. Rubackin

This case addresses the appropriate standard of proof for finding a willful violation of a Family Court order of protection when incarceration is the imposed remedy. The court determined that such a finding, leading to jail time, constitutes a criminal contempt and thus requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than previously applied in some appellate decisions. While the Family Court initially used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the appellate court reviewed the evidence and concluded it was sufficient to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Consequently, the original order's finding was modified to reflect the correct standard, and the order was affirmed as modified. An appeal regarding the expired period of incarceration was dismissed as academic.

Family LawContempt of CourtStandard of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptFamily Court ActDue ProcessIncarcerationAppellate ReviewOrder of Protection
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pamela R. v. James N.

This case addresses the appropriate burden of proof in Family Court contempt proceedings concerning custody order violations, specifically contrasting criminal and civil contempt. The court examined whether proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required for criminal contempt, as established by Rubackin v Rubackin, and clear and convincing evidence for civil contempt. The father was accused of willfully violating a sole custody order by altering his daughter's prescribed medication regimen. The court found that the mother failed to prove criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence, as the father's actions were deemed justified due to his medical expertise and good faith belief regarding his daughter's well-being. Consequently, the mother's petition was dismissed.

Family CourtContempt ProceedingCustody OrderBurden of ProofCriminal ContemptCivil ContemptReasonable DoubtClear and Convincing EvidenceJudicial AuthorityParental Rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kristopher I.

This case concerns an appeal from an Ulster County Family Court order adjudicating a respondent, born in 1987, a person in need of supervision (PINS) due to chronic school absenteeism. The respondent argued that emotional disability caused the absences and that the Family Court applied an incorrect evidentiary standard, using "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as required by Family Court Act § 744 (b). The appellate court agreed with the respondent regarding the evidentiary standard error. However, after independently reviewing the record, the appellate court determined that even with the correct standard, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the unlawfulness of the respondent's persistent absences despite documented mental health issues. Consequently, the order adjudicating the respondent a PINS was affirmed.

PINS ProceedingTruancySchool AbsenteeismEvidentiary StandardBeyond a Reasonable DoubtPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMental HealthChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Payne v. Doubtful

James Doubtful obtained a $10,000 judgment against John Barton Payne, agent for the United States Railroad Administration operating the International & Great Northern Railway, for personal injuries sustained while working for Signor Tie Company at Conroe, Texas. Doubtful was injured when a train suddenly started without warning while he was crossing it to get water, a common practice known to the railroad operatives. The jury found the operatives negligent for failing to ring the bell and acquitted Doubtful of contributory negligence. On appeal, Payne argued Doubtful was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for choosing a dangerous path, but the court affirmed the jury's findings, emphasizing the right to expect a warning and the customary nature of Doubtful's actions. The judgment was reformed to remove the execution issuance but affirmed in all other respects.

NegligenceContributory NegligenceRailroad AccidentPersonal InjuryJury VerdictCustomary PracticeFailure to WarnAppellate ReviewProximate CauseEmployee Safety
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barnes

The appellate court reversed a murder conviction, finding the People failed to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, charged with murder for shooting a co-worker, had raised an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and lacked the capacity to understand his actions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court with directions to enter a directed verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and to issue an examination order.

Insanity defenseMurderSchizophreniaParanoid typeCriminal procedureBurden of proofSanityAppellate reviewRemittalDirected verdict
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Paz v. State

Oscar Pena De La Paz's convictions for aggravated sexual assault and injury to a child were affirmed on remand. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had reversed an earlier affirmation due to erroneously admitted hospital records containing victim statements. On remand, the court conducted a harm analysis, finding that despite the erroneous admission and the State's emphasis on the notes, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reasoned that the strong medical and circumstantial evidence, De La Paz's suspicious behavior, and inconsistent statements were sufficient for conviction. The court also concluded that the notes did not contribute to the jury's punishment assessment and rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Aggravated Sexual AssaultInjury to a ChildHarm AnalysisInadmissible EvidenceConfrontation ClauseMedical RecordsVictim StatementsAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionChild Abuse
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1982

People v. Lewis

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree after the badly decomposed body of Lynn May Bailey was discovered in Cooper Lake, Ulster County. The victim's body was found bound, weighted, and encased, with drowning determined as the cause of death by a forensic expert. Defendant, who was the last person to see Bailey alive, admitted to disposing of her belongings and fleeing the state following an argument and their breakup. The conviction was based on substantial circumstantial evidence, including defendant's flight, his false statements to authorities, and his actions to conceal evidence. The jury concluded that the evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, inconsistent with innocence and excluding all other reasonable hypotheses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting arguments concerning probable cause for arrest and prosecutorial misconduct.

murdercircumstantial evidenceappealconvictiondrowningUlster Countyflightfalse statementsforensic experttoxicology
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neckwear Con. Ass'n

The Attorney General sought leave from the District Court to dismiss an indictment, returned in March 1959, which charged multiple defendants including associations and individuals with violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in the ladies' blouse production industry. The charges involved alleged conspiracies to fix prices, allocate work, and establish exclusivity in New York and Pennsylvania. Only one defendant, Slate Belt, opposed the dismissal, arguing that the indictment's pendency had brought stability and prosperity to its members and fearing a return to prior restrictive practices if the prosecution ceased. The government, following a re-evaluation, contended that the available evidence was insufficient to prove the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt and that proceeding would necessitate a change in legal theory. The Court, exercising its discretion, granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding the reasons advanced were substantial and made in good faith, and that it would be futile to compel a prosecution in which the government had no faith.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCriminal ProcedureMotion to DismissNolle ProsequiProsecutorial DiscretionFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury IndictmentConspiracy
References
25
Case No. ADJ8332402, ADJ8336415
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

NESABEL DUMON vs. BED, BATH & BEYOND, ARCH INSURANCE

This case involves Nesabel Dumon's application for workers' compensation benefits against Bed, Bath & Beyond and Arch Insurance. The Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the WCJ's decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Consequently, the Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENYWCJ reportadopted and incorporatedNESABEL DUMONBED BATH & BEYONDARCH INSURANCEADJ8332402ADJ8336415
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 1980

People v. Arpino

Defendant Arpiño appealed a conviction of reckless endangerment in the second degree and harassment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, had sentenced him to a fine and conditional discharge. The appellate court found that the crime of harassment was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as the complainant could not identify specific threats made by Arpiño. Consequently, the judgment was modified by reversing the conviction of harassment and dismissing that count of the indictment. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

Reckless EndangermentHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewReasonable DoubtWitness IdentificationNonjury TrialConvictionSentenceIndictment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,292 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