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

Kenneth L. Storey v. Randall E. Nichols

This case addresses the appropriate appellate jurisdiction for attorney-disciplinary proceedings initiated under specific Tennessee Code Annotated sections. Kenneth L. Storey filed a petition alleging misconduct against several State's attorneys, which was dismissed by a trial court. Upon appeal, the intermediate appellate court transferred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, referencing prior judicial constructions in Memphis & Shelby County Bar Ass’n v. Himmelstein, clarified that appeals as of right in statutory disciplinary proceedings lie in the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the transfer order and sent the case to the Court of Appeals for a review on its merits.

Attorney DisciplineAppellate JurisdictionTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationCourt of AppealsSupreme CourtProsecutorial MisconductRule 9Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-201Pro Se Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shoga v. Fischer

The petitioner, a prisoner, faced disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and harassment after making inappropriate comments to a social worker about her personal appearance and marital status, despite being told to stop. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty of these charges, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. The court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims regarding improperly denied witnesses and alleged hearing officer bias.

Prison DisciplinaryHarassmentRefusing Direct OrderSubstantial EvidenceWitness DenialHearing Officer BiasAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPrisoner RightsCorrectional Facility
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McIntyre v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Frank W. McIntyre appeals a trial court's judgment disbarring him as an attorney in Texas. The disciplinary proceeding stemmed from McIntyre's representation of Elizabeth Zedaran in a post-divorce proceeding regarding unpaid 1999 federal income taxes owed by her ex-husband, James Infinger. McIntyre received a check from the court registry to pay part of the taxes but withheld it, claiming he needed a signed tax return and Infinger's check for the balance, which led to significant penalties from the IRS. Infinger filed a grievance, and the Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a disciplinary petition. A jury found McIntyre violated Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 1.14(b) and 3.04(d), leading to his disbarment, which this appellate court affirms.

Attorney DisbarmentProfessional MisconductLegal EthicsClient FundsThird-Party InterestsTax LiabilityDivorce Decree EnforcementTexas Disciplinary Rules of Professional ConductJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1985

Taylor v. Cass

The petitioner, a senior sewage treatment plant operator for Suffolk County, was terminated following a notice of infraction for failing to give a fair day’s work and sleeping during scheduled hours. This termination occurred during a six-month disciplinary probationary period, established after a prior disciplinary proceeding where he agreed to termination without a hearing only if his job performance was 'adversely affected' by alcohol consumption. The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that the recent charges were unrelated to alcohol and thus required a disciplinary hearing under Civil Service Law § 75. Special Term found no evidence of intoxication and annulled the termination, reinstating the petitioner with retroactive pay. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, agreeing that the termination without a hearing was arbitrary and capricious given the specific terms of the prior stipulation.

Employment LawPublic WorksDisciplinary ActionWrongful TerminationAdministrative ReviewProbationary PeriodStipulation AgreementAlcohol PolicyDue Process RightsJudicial Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,365 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