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. 12-12-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 (Respondent: Latrice Whitaker, Robert Whitaker) v. State

Latrice and Robert Whitaker appealed a trial court's default judgment which forfeited their interest in a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 motor vehicle. The State of Texas initiated forfeiture proceedings, alleging the vehicle was contraband under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Whitakers failed to respond, leading to the default judgment. They subsequently filed motions for new trial, asserting defenses such as innocent ownership, the vehicle not being contraband, and an Eighth Amendment violation, and arguing lack of service. The trial court denied these motions, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that the Whitakers' factual assertions in their motions for new trial were not supported by evidence or affidavits, which is required by caselaw to set aside a default judgment.

default judgmentforfeiturecontrabandmotion for new trialabuse of discretionappellate reviewTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureEighth Amendmentcivil procedureappellate procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

People v. Torres

The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree after pleading guilty, and sentenced to 5 years probation. The judgment was unanimously affirmed. The defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied. The court ruled that police action, involving a ruse where an officer posed as a friend to retrieve the defendant's pistol from his girlfriend, was analogous to an undercover operation and did not violate Fourth Amendment rights. The court also held that deceiving someone into bringing contraband to a lawful seizure location is permissible if it does not undermine voluntariness. Furthermore, even if considered a search of the apartment, it was valid due to the girlfriend's consent, despite the use of a ruse.

Criminal LawSuppression MotionFourth AmendmentUndercover OperationRuseConsent SearchCriminal Possession of a WeaponAppellate ReviewDue ProcessVoluntariness
References
8
Case No. 3-92-343-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1994

State v. Sheri Nelle McMillen

The State of Texas appealed trial court orders granting motions to suppress evidence against Sheri Nelle McMillen and Darvin Duane Hadley, who were charged with unlawful possession of marihuana. The appellees had filed motions to suppress, arguing that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause due to insufficient information regarding the credibility of informants, the timeliness of their observations, and the identification of the premises. The appellate court reviewed the affidavit's sufficiency under the "totality of the circumstances" test, focusing on whether it established probable cause that contraband was present when the warrant was issued. The court found the affidavit deficient because it used past tense (

Search WarrantProbable CauseMotion to SuppressMarihuana PossessionAffidavit SufficiencyTotality of the CircumstancesInformant ReliabilityTimeliness of InformationCriminal ProcedureFourth Amendment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Stubbs

The defendant, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was involved in an altercation with prison personnel in December 1989, resulting in his conviction for assault and promoting prison contraband. The defendant appealed, arguing he was denied equal protection due to the People's peremptory challenges against "minority race" venirepersons, and that the indictment should have been dismissed due to lack of Grand Jury notice. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination under Batson v Kentucky, and that he was not entitled to Grand Jury notice as he had not served a request. The court also rejected claims regarding the denial of access to personnel records, marshaling of evidence, and ineffective counsel.

Jury selectionPeremptory challengesBatson challengeEqual protectionRacial discriminationGrand Jury noticeInmate assaultPrison contrabandCorrection officersAppellate review
References
19
Case No. M2023-00314-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2025

State of Tennessee v. Alexander Friedmann

Alexander Friedmann appealed his conviction for vandalism of property over $250,000, stemming from his actions at the Downtown Detention Center in Davidson County. He was found guilty of hiding contraband in the facility's walls and temporarily removing a key ring, which led to significant rekeying costs and security concerns. On appeal, Friedmann challenged the indictment's vagueness, the admissibility of cost evidence, the denial of a motion to suppress a judicial subpoena, the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged discovery violations, improper prosecutorial arguments, and his forty-year sentence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, addressing each of Friedmann's contentions and finding no reversible error, thus upholding his conviction and sentence.

VandalismCriminal AppealDavidson CountyTennessee LawSufficiency of EvidenceDiscovery ViolationsSentencingJudicial SubpoenaKey ControlContraband
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boutin v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Kimberly Boutin sued her employer, Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc., and ExxonMobil Corporation, alleging sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Boutin, a contractor employee at an ExxonMobil plant, claimed she was fired due to her sex and in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Defendants contended she was terminated for violating their drug policy after marijuana was found in her car during a contraband search. The court granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The court determined the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive, Boutin failed to show similarly situated comparators for her discrimination claim, and there was no "but for" causation for retaliation. Additionally, ExxonMobil was not considered Boutin's joint employer.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment GrantedJoint Employer LiabilityTitle VIIDisparate TreatmentWorkplace Drug PolicyContractor Employment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Morrison

Defendant Rodney Morrison was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of contraband cigarettes and illegal firearm possession. The State and City of New York sought restitution as victims of the RICO conspiracy. The Court found the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) applicable. It determined that the State of New York is a direct victim, but the City of New York is not, as its claimed harm was not directly and proximately caused by the specific conduct Morrison was convicted of (lacking New York State tax stamps). Consequently, the State's restitution application is granted in part, limited to tax losses from actual CCTA violations between October 1996 and September 2004, while the City's application is denied. The State must submit further documentation consistent with these limitations.

RestitutionRICO ConspiracyContraband CigarettesTax EvasionMVRAVWPAState Tax LossCriminal SentencingFederal Court DecisionProximate Causation
References
17
Case No. 10-07-00369-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Trey Davis and Money of the United States in the Amount of $15,273.25 v. State

Trey Davis appealed the trial court's decision to overrule his motion for a new trial following a default judgment of forfeiture. The State of Texas had sought forfeiture of $15,273.25 in cash, found in Davis's bedroom, under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging it was contraband. Davis failed to file an answer, resulting in the default judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The court found that Davis satisfied all elements, demonstrating his failure to answer was not intentional, he presented a meritorious defense by asserting the money came from insurance claims, and granting a new trial would not prejudice the State. Consequently, the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and reversed the judgment, remanding the case.

Default JudgmentForfeitureMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsAppellate ReviewTexas Criminal ProcedureContrabandMeritorious DefenseCash Forfeiture
References
13
Case No. SI 14 Cr. 68(KBF)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2014

United States v. Ulbricht

This Opinion & Order addresses motions in limine filed by both the Government and defendant Ross Ulbricht in case SI 14 Cr. 68(KBF). Ulbricht is charged with narcotics trafficking, computer hacking, fraudulent identification documents, and running a continuing criminal enterprise related to the online marketplace Silk Road. The Court denied Ulbricht's motions to preclude evidence concerning Silk Road product listings, murder-for-hire solicitations, and fraudulent identification documents, finding them relevant to the charged offenses and Ulbricht's identity. Conversely, the Court granted Ulbricht's motion to preclude certain miscellaneous exhibits and denied the Government's motion to admit evidence of uncharged contraband, citing irrelevance and undue prejudice. The Government's motions regarding potential consequences of conviction and defendant's political views were denied as moot.

Silk RoadRoss UlbrichtMotions In LimineEvidence AdmissibilityNarcotics TraffickingComputer Hacking ConspiracyFraudulent Identification DocumentsMurder-for-Hire SolicitationRule 404(b) EvidenceRule 403 Balancing
References
58
Case No. 13-ev-7535
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lasership, Inc.

The City of New York brought an action against LaserShip, Inc., alleging the defendant delivered untaxed cigarettes to New York consumers. The plaintiff claimed violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the New York Public Health Law, and the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). LaserShip moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including lack of participation in an enterprise, absence of a racketeering pattern, no proximate cause, CCTA carrier exemption, and lack of standing. The District Court denied LaserShip's motion to dismiss in its entirety, finding that the City adequately pleaded all claims and that LaserShip's arguments for dismissal were without merit. The court held that the City sufficiently alleged operation or management, continuity, proximate cause, and that the CCTA did not impose a single transaction requirement or a broad carrier exemption.

RICOCCTAPACT ActPublic Health LawMotion to DismissUntaxed CigarettesInterstate CommerceRacketeering ActivityContinuityProximate Cause
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 11 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