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

United States v. Perez

This Order addresses challenges by six defendants to the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and the Sentencing Guidelines. District Judge Nowlin found that the Act violates the separation of powers doctrine and Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, particularly concerning the composition and authority of the Sentencing Commission and the lack of presidential presentment for the Guidelines. The Court further ruled that the Sentencing Guidelines infringe upon defendants' due process rights by unduly restricting judicial discretion in sentencing and limiting the consideration of individual circumstances. While concluding the unconstitutional provisions could be severed, the Court directed that, pending appellate review, sentences for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, should be determined as if committed before that date, accounting for the absence of parole.

Sentencing Reform ActSentencing GuidelinesConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersArticle IDue ProcessJudicial DiscretionFederal Criminal JusticeJudicial IndependencePresentment Clause
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Bonventre

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of accepting bribes from contractors to fraudulently induce insurance carriers to lower Workers’ Compensation premiums. The court, led by Senior District Judge Weinstein, determined that general deterrence was the primary consideration in sentencing, particularly due to the widespread bribery and corruption in the New York City building industry. Despite the defendant's poor health and good private life, his crimes were motivated by greed and betrayed public trust. The court issued an upward departure from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, imposing a $250,000 fine and sentencing the defendant to time served, along with a $50 assessment. The judge found the Guideline maximum fine of $5,000 to be absurd given the defendant's wealth and the seriousness of the offense.

BriberySentencingWorkers' Compensation FraudGeneral DeterrenceUpward DepartureCriminal ConductInsurance FraudFederal Sentencing GuidelinesWhite-Collar CrimeJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. United States

Carmine Russo sought to correct his sentence via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a five-level enhancement for intended loss in his plea agreement for conspiracy to commit robbery. The court dismissed the petition, first determining it was time-barred by the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, as it was filed after the September 14, 2003 deadline. Second, the court found the petition barred by Russo's knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal rights, which was part of his plea agreement for a sentence within the stipulated guidelines range. Lastly, the court rejected Russo's "actual innocence" claim concerning the intended loss calculation, concluding he understood and assented to the plea terms.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselPlea AgreementAppeal WaiverStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingActual Innocence ClaimSentencing GuidelinesIntended Loss EnhancementFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re J.G.

J.G., a juvenile offender, appealed an order transferring her from the Texas Youth Commission to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice after she pleaded true to capital murder charges and received a 35-year determinate sentence. J.G. contended that the determinate sentence system violated various constitutional rights, including due process, equal protection, the right to indictment, and protection against double jeopardy under both U.S. and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court reviewed each of J.G.'s contentions and found no constitutional infirmity, affirming the transfer order. The court emphasized that the determinate sentence statutes aim to balance the welfare of the child with the protection of society from violent juvenile offenders.

Determinate SentencingJuvenile JusticeConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionDouble JeopardyRight to CounselJuvenile TransferCapital MurderTexas Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.L.H., Matter Of

R.L.H., a minor, appealed a juvenile court judgment from Tom Green County, where a jury found him delinquent for attempted capital murder and assessed commitment to the Texas Youth Commission for twenty years under the determinate sentencing law. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the determinate sentencing statutes, arguing violations of the Texas Constitution's grand jury indictment requirement, equal rights, and due course of law, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the determinate sentencing statutes meet constitutional requirements, further a compelling state interest by balancing public safety and child welfare, and that the arguments regarding transfer to the Texas Department of Corrections were premature. The Court also rejected claims about the invalidity of the commitment based on pleadings and jury findings, and declined to consider a new point of error concerning admonishment of rights as fundamental error.

Juvenile JusticeDeterminate SentencingConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionDue ProcessIndictmentGrand JuryTexas Youth CommissionTexas Department of CorrectionsAppellate Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Johnson

Thomas Wayne Johnson appealed his sentence for vehicular assault, carrying a weapon, and possession of a Schedule II controlled substance for delivery. He challenged the restitution ordered to Curtis Wayne Jackson, arguing that the determination process was not in accordance with the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989, his financial resources were not considered, and there was inadequate evidence for lost wages and excessive restitution for future expenses. The Court found errors in the determination of restitution, specifically the lack of documentation in the presentence report regarding the victim's losses and the trial court's failure to consider the appellant's financial resources and ability to pay. Additionally, the Court noted that basing restitution on a civil judgment or mirroring a civil tort action was erroneous. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

Restitution CalculationSentencing GuidelinesAppellate ReviewVictim CompensationFinancial Ability to PayPecuniary LossLost Wages RestitutionFuture Medical ExpensesCriminal Sentencing Reform ActCommunity Corrections Program
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Caballero

Saul Caballero, who pleaded guilty to two drug conspiracies (heroin and methamphetamine distribution), objected to an aggravating role enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, arguing it would increase his mandatory-minimum sentence and thus require a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt as per Alleyne v. United States. Following a two-day Fatico hearing, the District Court concluded that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Caballero was a manager or supervisor of the heroin distribution conspiracy, but not the crystal methamphetamine conspiracy. The Court also rejected Caballero's argument that Alleyne mandates a jury to determine safety-valve eligibility, affirming that judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence for safety-valve criteria is constitutionally permissible as it potentially lessens, rather than increases, the mandatory minimum sentence. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a jury determination was denied.

Sentencing GuidelinesAggravating Role EnhancementMandatory Minimum SentenceSafety Valve EligibilityDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionMethamphetamine DistributionPreponderance of EvidenceJury DeterminationConstitutional Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,251 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