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

Roman v. New York City Police Department

The petitioner's employment was terminated by the New York City Police Department due to unexcused absence, intoxication, and possession of cocaine. Despite promising to report to duty, the petitioner never appeared. Police, entering her apartment under emergency circumstances, found her unconscious and intoxicated, with cocaine residue visible. Subsequent urine tests were positive for cocaine. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petitioner's request, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding, citing substantial evidence to support the termination.

employment terminationpolice misconductCPLR Article 78emergency doctrinewarrantless entrydrug possessionpublic employee disciplinesubstantial evidenceadministrative law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. State

The appellant, Linda Wright, was convicted of delivery of cocaine, and the trial court sentenced her to 30 years. She appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the substance was cocaine, challenging the chain of custody, and alleging officer bias. The court reviewed testimony from the undercover officer, Adrien Herndon, and a chemist, Thomas Wilk, who confirmed the substance was cocaine through field and laboratory tests. The court addressed and dismissed Wright's arguments regarding tampering and chain of custody, noting that any objections to custody go to weight, not admissibility, and that the jury determines witness credibility. Consequently, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawSufficiency of EvidenceCocaine DeliveryChain of CustodyWitness CredibilityDrug OffensesTexas Court of AppealsFelony ConvictionUndercover OperationChemical Analysis
References
7
Case No. 10-92-187-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1993

John Lott v. State

John Wesley Lott appealed the revocation of his probation, which stemmed from a 1988 conviction for burglary of a building. The State initiated the revocation proceedings after Lott was indicted for delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine. Following a hearing, Lott's probation was revoked, and he received a ten-year prison sentence. On appeal, Lott contended that the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation due to a broken chain of custody for the controlled substance. However, the appellate court affirmed the judgment, noting that the exhibit containing the cocaine was admitted into evidence without objection, thereby waiving the complaint for appellate review.

Probation RevocationBurglaryControlled SubstanceCocaineChain of CustodyAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureEvidence AdmissibilityTexas LawPer Curium
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cowan v. MaBSTOA

Plaintiff, an employee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (M&B), was fired for using cocaine and stealing company property. He filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his rights under the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff had previously participated in M&B's employee assistance program for drug abusers but abandoned it and returned to cocaine use. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff was not protected by the Rehabilitation Act as he was a current illegal drug user and his misconduct rendered him unqualified for his supervisory position, which involved public safety. The decision affirmed that egregious misconduct is a sufficient basis for dismissal, irrespective of an employee's disability.

Rehabilitation Actdrug abuseemployment discriminationsummary judgmentmisconductpublic safetycocaine addictionwrongful terminationfederal lawemployer liability
References
20
Case No. 06-08-00029-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2008

Stevie Walker v. State

Stevie Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, crack cocaine, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Officer Brian Pool, accompanied by Officer Travis Shirley, stopped Walker's vehicle after observing him fail to properly signal two turns. During the temporary detention, Pool discovered Walker in possession of a rock of crack cocaine. Walker contended Pool lacked specific, articulable facts to support reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, but the court found that an officer may lawfully stop a person for a traffic violation committed in their presence. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Pool had an objectively reasonable basis to detain Walker for a personally observed violation of the Texas Transportation Code.

Traffic stopMotion to suppressReasonable suspicionFourth AmendmentControlled substanceCrack cocaineTexas Transportation CodeSignalling violationPretext stopAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfredo S. v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

Judge Miller dissents from the majority's decision, which granted custody of Lorraine to her natural father, Alfredo S., despite the Family Court's finding of risk to the child's safety. Lorraine was born in 1988, testing positive for cocaine due to her mother's drug use, and was placed with the Nassau County Department of Social Services. The judge argues that extraordinary circumstances, including Lorraine's birth condition and the father's admitted past cocaine use, sporadic employment, and lack of support for his other neglected children, justify state intervention. Miller, J. believes the record is insufficient to determine Lorraine's best interests and advocates for remitting the matter to the Family Court for a further hearing, emphasizing the court’s parens patriae duty to ensure the child’s safety and fundamental rights.

Custody DisputeExtraordinary CircumstancesParental RightsChild WelfareDrug ExposureNeglectFamily CourtParental FitnessBest Interests of ChildNassau County
References
36
Case No. 353/86
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Livingston

In this opinion by Charles A. Kuffner, J., the court addressed motions concerning Indictment No. 353/86, where defendants faced charges related to controlled substance possession. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Penal Law § 220.25 (2), the 'room presumption' statute, specifically regarding whether cocaine found in various locations qualified as 'in open view.' The court ruled that cocaine inside a refrigerator was not 'in open view,' leading to the dismissal of counts six and seven of the indictment. However, it determined that drugs in an opaque bag could be considered 'in open view' if the bag itself was visible and circumstances indicated criminal activity. Consequently, motions to dismiss other counts based on similar 'open view' arguments were denied.

Room Presumption StatuteControlled SubstancesDrug PossessionPenal Law § 220.25Open View DoctrineGrand Jury InstructionMotion to DismissCocaineSearch and SeizureCriminal Procedure
References
5
Case No. 01-10-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Dallas National Insurance Company v. Edwina Lewis, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bryant K. Lewis

The Dallas National Insurance Company appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed a Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) appeals panel decision. The TDI panel had found Bryant K. Lewis intoxicated at the time of his death, but the trial court concluded he was not. Bryant, a shuttle bus driver, died in a bus fire, and his workers' compensation claim was initially denied by Dallas National due to alleged intoxication from cocaine. The trial court's decision, relying on lay witness testimony of Bryant's normal behavior and expert testimony regarding the indeterminacy of cocaine's effect from the medical report, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Bryant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties.

Intoxication DefenseCocaine UseSufficiency of EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment ReversalMental Faculties AssessmentPhysical Faculties AssessmentTDI Appeals Panel Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theresa J. v. Patricia J.

This case involves an appeal in a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, where the respondent mother was accused of neglecting her three children due to drug misuse. Evidence presented included the mother testing positive for cocaine during childbirth, her admission to occasional cocaine use, and the premature birth and death of one child due to renal failure. While the majority found a prima facie case of neglect warranting a continued fact-finding hearing, the dissenting justice argued that a prima facie case was not established, citing a lack of proof for repeated drug misuse or a direct causal link between the mother's drug use and the child's impairment or death. Both the majority and dissent agreed to remand the case for further proceedings, especially considering a potential subsequent drug arrest of the respondent.

NeglectChild ProtectionDrug MisuseCocainePremature BirthInfant DeathPrima Facie CaseRemandFamily Court ActAppeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carvajal

This case addresses whether New York had territorial jurisdiction over a defendant prosecuted for first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy, despite the defendant residing and the cocaine being seized in California. The New York State Drug Enforcement Task Force uncovered an interstate drug trafficking ring transporting cocaine from San Francisco to Queens County, New York. The defendant, the West Coast partner, was involved in planning shipments and overseeing drug preparation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that New York rightly exercised jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 (1) (c) because a conspiracy to commit the possessory offenses occurred in New York, evidenced by the defendant's physical presence and numerous telephone conversations with New York-based accomplices.

Territorial JurisdictionCriminal Possession Controlled SubstanceConspiracyInterstate Drug TraffickingConstructive PossessionTelecommunications LawOvert ActsWaiver of Jury ChargeAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 56 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