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. 01-19-00793-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Terry Wayne King II v. the State of Texas

The First District of Texas at Houston denied the State's motion for rehearing. The State sought to apply the third-party consent exception to a warrantless search of a semi-truck by Terry Wayne King II's employer, John Feltman, who acted as an agent of the police. The court found no express consent from Feltman to the police to search the truck and determined that the facts presented did not sufficiently establish Feltman's common authority over the vehicle to provide third-party consent. The court concluded that third-party consent was not an applicable theory of law in this case, and the State failed to meet its burden of proof.

Criminal LawMotion for RehearingWarrantless SearchThird-Party ConsentFourth AmendmentEmployer-EmployeeAgency LawSuppression of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Giraldo

The case concerns a defendant indicted for cocaine possession, who moved to suppress evidence found during an apartment search. Police agents gained entry by falsely claiming to be gas company workers investigating a leak, then identified themselves and obtained written consent to search. The court ruled that the entry, achieved through deceptive inducement of fear, was illegal and rendered the initial consent involuntary. Furthermore, the subsequent written consent was not purged of this illegality due to the temporal proximity and absence of intervening circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the motion to suppress the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsentDeceptionMotion to SuppressIllegally Obtained EvidencePublic PolicyGas Leak RuseVoluntariness of ConsentTaint Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

Claim of Zaldivar v. SNS Organization

The claimant suffered a back and leg injury during employment, leading to a workers' compensation claim and a third-party action. The workers' compensation claim was established. The claimant sought the carrier's consent to settle the third-party claim. The carrier initially consented with conditions, but later questioned the settlement terms upon learning it was structured, requesting an investigation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed the claimant to provide proof of compliance with consent conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and continued the case for further record development. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues.

Third-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentInterlocutory AppealRecord DevelopmentAppellate ProcedureStructured SettlementDismissed AppealProcedural RulingConditions for ConsentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. 14-08-00037-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Oluwole Ajayi Gabriel v. State

A jury found appellant OLUWOLE AJAYI GABRIEL guilty of theft of $200,000.00 or more, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. Appellant raised four issues on appeal, contending errors in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of garbage and a private postal box, and alleging the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for venue. The appellate court found no error, affirming the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no expectation of privacy in trash left for collection, that the postal box search was valid due to agency consent, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support venue in Fort Bend County.

theftFourth Amendmentmotion to suppresswarrantless searchprobable causesearch warrantvenuecredit card fraudprivate postal boxgarbage search
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Showing 1-10 of 699 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