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

People v. Weech

The case involves an appeal from a defendant's murder conviction where the case was remitted to Trial Term to reconstruct the defendant's competency to stand trial. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Wellington Reynolds and Dr. Odysseus Adamides, assessed the defendant's competency based on various reports and observations. Dr. Reynolds had examined the defendant prior to trial. The defendant challenged Dr. Reynolds' credentials, asserting he was not a "qualified psychiatrist" under CPL 730.10(5)(a). The court previously remitted the case for a reconstruction proceeding. This current decision remits the matter once more for an adversary inquiry into the defendant's competency, clarifying that Dr. Reynolds' testimony, even if not from a "qualified psychiatrist," is admissible, and other professionals like the social worker, nurse, defense counsel, and Trial Judge could also testify.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction ProceedingPsychiatric EvaluationCriminal Procedure LawAdmissibility of Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessMental Health ServicesDefendant's RightsMurder Second Degree
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Stone

The case addresses whether a trial court violated a defendant's constitutional rights by failing to sua sponte inquire into his mental capacity before allowing him to represent himself. The defendant, charged with burglary, initially represented himself, citing distrust of attorneys, but later requested stand-by counsel to take over. Post-trial, while awaiting sentencing, the defendant developed psychiatric issues and was deemed incompetent, but later recovered. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should have assessed his competency for self-representation under a heightened standard, citing Indiana v. Edwards. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's rejection of this argument, holding that Edwards does not mandate a two-tiered competency standard or a sua sponte competency hearing for pro se requests, especially when no signs of severe mental illness were apparent during trial. The Court emphasized that New York law allows consideration of mental capacity during the 'searching inquiry' for waiver of counsel but does not require a separate formal hearing unless there is a clear basis to question mental capacity at that time.

Self-representationPro seCompetencyMental IllnessConstitutional RightsWaiver of CounselSixth AmendmentDue ProcessTrial Court DiscretionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. M2010-00175-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2011

State of Tennessee v. Jeffery D. Lemay

The defendant, Jeffery D. Lemay, appealed his guilty plea to one count of rape of a child, challenging the trial court’s finding of competency to stand trial. Lemay, diagnosed with mild mental retardation, underwent competency evaluations by Doctor Donna Moore, who initially recommended training but later deemed it futile, and Doctor Kimberly Brown, who noted malingering. The trial court ultimately found Lemay competent, citing his work history and discrediting some expert interpretations. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee dismissed the appeal, concluding that the defendant failed to properly certify a dispositive question of law according to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), thus lacking jurisdiction to review the issue.

Criminal ProcedureCompetency to Stand TrialMental RetardationAppeal DismissedCertified Question of LawGuilty PleaRape of a ChildAppellate JurisdictionMalingeringForensic Evaluation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. State

Paul Harold Rice appealed the revocation of his community supervision, contending the trial court erred by not sua sponte holding a hearing on his competency to stand trial. Rice, suffering from toxic metabolic encephalopathy and dementia due to toxic chemical exposure, was deemed 100% disabled under the Workers Compensation Act. The appellate court, applying a "bona fide doubt" standard, reviewed the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion. Despite evidence of Rice's medical conditions and psychological difficulties, the court found no indication he lacked the present ability to consult with his attorney or understand the proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding no bona fide doubt as to competency was raised.

Competency to Stand TrialDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCommunity Supervision RevocationToxic Metabolic EncephalopathyDementiaMental CompetencyCriminal ProcedureTexas LawAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

City of San Antonio v. Summerglen Property Owners Ass'n

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio challenged a trial court's ruling regarding the standing of property owners to contest a proposed annexation. The property owners, including Summerglen Property Owners Association, argued the City violated statutory procedures under Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code and that the annexation was prohibited by House Bill 585. The City contended the property owners lacked standing because procedural challenges require a quo warranto proceeding and H.B. 585 was an unconstitutional local law. The appellate court agreed with the City, holding that claims of procedural defects and arbitration issues did not confer standing to private individuals, as they did not render the annexation 'wholly void.' Crucially, the court also found H.B. 585 to be an unconstitutional local law, as it targeted a specific geographic area within San Antonio's extraterritorial jurisdiction without a reasonable basis. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, vacated the temporary injunction, and dismissed the property owners' claims.

AnnexationStandingQuo WarrantoLocal Government CodeHouse Bill 585Constitutional LawSpecial LawTexas ConstitutionInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Relief
References
26
Case No. NO. 03-12-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2014

David L. Lakey, M.D., in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services v. Floyd Taylor, by His Next Friend, Melissa Shearer Gabriela Hernandez, by Her Next Friend, Melissa Shearer Zachary Ridgeway, by His Next Friend, Martin J. Cirkiel Stanley Jackson, by His Next Friend, Martin J. Cirkiel

This case involves a challenge by Disability Rights Texas and nine individuals, criminal defendants found incompetent to stand trial, against the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department's system for prioritizing the transfer of incompetent defendants to hospitals for competency-restoration treatment, known as the Forensic Clearinghouse List, was unconstitutional. The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding that the waiting list violated their due course of law rights by causing prolonged delays in treatment. The Commissioner appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that the Department's system is not unconstitutional on its face. The court reasoned that not all detainees on the list are held solely for competency restoration, as some may be detained for independent, constitutionally sound reasons such as being a danger to others or a flight risk. Furthermore, the court found no policy requiring a specific long wait time for all detainees. Therefore, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s permanent injunction and rendered judgment in favor of the Commissioner.

Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessIncompetent to Stand TrialCompetency Restoration TreatmentMental Health ServicesState HospitalsForensic Clearinghouse ListFacial Constitutional ChallengeConfinement LegalityTexas Constitution
References
25
Case No. 11-04-00121-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2005

Allan Wayne Brubaker v. State

Allan Wayne Brubaker appealed his murder conviction after pleading guilty, contending that the trial court erred in accepting his plea due to a prior unvacated adjudication of incompetency and in failing to grant his motion for new trial based on claims of insanity and incompetence. Brubaker argued his plea was involuntary due to a severe head injury in 1997, which impacted his cognitive abilities, and an existing guardianship. The court reviewed testimony from Brubaker and his attorney, Jim Smart, along with reports from medical examiners Dr. John D. Crowley and Dr. Samuel D. Brinkman concerning his mental state and competency. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was ample evidence to support Brubaker's competency to stand trial, that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and that he was legally sane at the time of the offense. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.

murderguilty pleacompetency to stand trialinsanity defenseinvoluntary pleabrain injuryguardianshipappellate reviewabuse of discretioncriminal procedure
References
3
Case No. M2007-00257-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2008

Packers Supply Co. v. Eric H. Weber

A corporation, Packers Supply Co., filed suit against two former employees, Eric H. Weber and Robert S. Rini, for violating a non-compete agreement. The defendants argued the agreement was unenforceable due to the business's structural changes from a sole proprietorship to a corporation. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the employees, stating the corporation lacked standing as it was not a party to the original agreement. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the non-compete agreement was assigned to the corporation by operation of law, thus giving Packers Supply Co. standing to enforce it.

Non-compete agreementBusiness entity changeContract assignmentStanding to sueSummary judgmentAppellate reviewCorporate restructuringEmployment lawRestraint of tradeTennessee contract law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Hardy

Damion Hardy, facing multiple murder charges, was deemed incompetent to stand trial due to paranoid schizophrenia. Despite his refusal of medication, the government moved to involuntarily medicate him, arguing he posed a danger to others and to restore his competency. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Block, granted the government's motion. The decision was based on findings that Hardy's mental illness made him dangerous to correctional staff, and that involuntary antipsychotic medication was medically appropriate and substantially likely to restore his competency without unduly interfering with his defense, thereby upholding the government's interest in bringing him to trial.

Involuntary MedicationCompetency RestorationParanoid SchizophreniaDangerousnessDue Process ClauseAntipsychotic DrugsPretrial DetaineeCriminal ProceedingsSerious Criminal ChargesFederal Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 15,169 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