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. 2016 NY Slip Op 02734 [138 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2016

Matter of Lesli R. (Luis R.)

The Family Court's order of disposition, which found that the respondent sexually abused his stepdaughters and derivatively abused his five biological children, was unanimously affirmed. The record supported the court's determination that the respondent was legally responsible for the children and that there was a preponderance of evidence of sexual abuse. The stepdaughters' out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by the respondent's own statements. The court also found that the respondent derivatively abused his own children and properly exercised its discretion in quashing a subpoena to compel one of the stepdaughters to testify due to potential psychological harm.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseDerivative AbuseFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCorroborationParental ObligationsSubpoena Quash
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg v. Jones

This case involves an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (National Union) against an order of sanctions for abuse of discovery. The original suit was filed by Jones, appealing an industrial accident board award in a worker’s compensation claim. The trial court sanctioned National Union for evasive responses to discovery requests, ordering them to respond to admissions and pay $1,200 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court found that National Union had not waived its right to appeal the sanctions due to an explicit reservation in the agreed judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's order of sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion, and also denied Jones' cross-point seeking damages for a frivolous appeal.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationAttorneys' FeesDue ProcessWaiver of AppealFrivolous AppealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. 2-04-314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

Gary Ford and Blinda Ford v. Performance Aircraft Services, Inc. and Robert Jones

This case concerns the appeal of Gary and Blinda Ford against the dismissal of their negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability claims. The trial court dismissed their case for failing to amend their pleadings within a nine-month deadline after special exceptions were granted. The Fords contended that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the exceptions, dismissing the case without first trying lesser sanctions, and not considering their untimely amended petition filed before the dismissal order. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to sustain the special exceptions regarding damages, individual liability for Robert Jones, and specificity of defective products. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal given the missed deadline and no violation of the Fords' due process rights.

Pleading defectsSpecial exceptionsDismissal of caseAbuse of discretionFair notice standardDamages claimsIndividual liabilityStrict product liabilityTimely amendmentDue process rights
References
19
Case No. 09-07-026 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2008

Donna Jean Morgan v. Mitchell Delano Morgan

This appeal addresses a trial court's geographical residency restriction on the primary residence of children in a divorce proceeding. Appellant Donna Jean Morgan challenged the order, arguing it constituted an abuse of discretion, was not in the children's best interest, and infringed upon her fundamental rights. The trial court had restricted the children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the statutory factors for the best interest of the child and the constitutional arguments. The court found that the trial court possessed sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the application of that discretion was not erroneous, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild Residency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionParental RightsBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional LawDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1992

In re Jamie C.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted a petitioner's application to adjudicate the respondents' children as abused and/or neglected. The Family Court had found the father, James D., sexually and physically abused his daughter Jamie C. and neglected all four children, while the mother, Barbara C., sexually abused Jamie and neglected all four. On appeal, the finding of sexual abuse against the mother was reversed due to insufficient corroborating evidence and Jamie C.'s conflicting sworn testimony. However, the findings of the father's sexual and physical abuse, and both parents' neglect stemming from chronic alcohol abuse and violent behavior, were affirmed based on Jamie's credible testimony and other evidence presented.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbusePhysical AbuseAlcohol AbuseCredibility of TestimonyCorroboration of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. County of Chemung

Petitioners, including an infant, sought to serve a late notice of claim against Chemung County Department of Social Services for injuries and child abuse sustained by the infant while in foster care between 1978 and 1983. Special Term denied the application due to delays and insufficient allegations. On appeal, the court found that Special Term did not abuse its discretion regarding the 1978 injury. However, the appellate court determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny the application for events between November 1982 and March 1983, as the respondents had actual knowledge of the claim and were not unduly prejudiced by the delay or the death of a caseworker. The order was therefore modified, partially granting the application for the later incidents.

Late notice of claimGeneral Municipal LawInfant plaintiffChild abuse allegationsFoster care liabilityJudicial discretionPrejudice defenseActual knowledgeStatute of limitationsAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. 01-10-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2011

Michael Conti and Rainbow Conti v. Department of Family and Protective Services

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for Michael and Rainbow Conti to their child E.C. The Contis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for termination, an abused discretion in denying a motion for continuance, and improper closing arguments by opposing counsel. The court found that the Contis failed to challenge all grounds for termination and that substantial evidence supported the finding that termination was in E.C.'s best interest, citing Michael's prior indecency conviction and sexual abuse of another child in the home, which Rainbow failed to protect against. The court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance motions or the objections to closing arguments, given the procedural history and the latitude afforded to trial counsel.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseSexual AbuseBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceMotion for ContinuanceIneffective Assistance of CounselClosing ArgumentsFamily LawAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morgan v. Morgan

This appeal concerns a trial court's imposition of a geographical residency restriction in a divorce proceeding involving Donna Jean Morgan and Mitchell Delano Morgan. Donna appealed the order restricting her and their children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District, arguing it was an abuse of discretion, against the children's best interest, and an unconstitutional infringement on her parental rights, primarily due to economic motives to relocate to Lafayette, Louisiana. The court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering various factors like the reasons for the move, impact on extended family, and visitation with the non-custodial parent. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the trial court had sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the restriction was in the children's best interest. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Donna's constitutional challenge.

Child CustodyResidency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionParental RightsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process ClauseTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jeanne TT.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County that adjudicated the respondent a person in need of supervision (PINS) and placed her in the custody of the petitioner for 18 months. The PINS adjudication stemmed from the respondent absconding from treatment facilities on three occasions after being removed from her mother's home due to a prior neglect proceeding. The respondent argued that the Family Court abused its discretion by not substituting a neglect petition for the PINS petition and that testimony from social workers violated client-social worker privilege. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, noting the respondent's behavior was not attributable to parental abuse and occurred while she was in residential treatment. It also ruled that the client-social worker privilege did not apply to the evidence presented, as the communications were not made to a certified social worker or intended to be confidential. Finally, the court affirmed the dispositional order, finding placement necessary given the respondent's history of incorrigible behavior and her mother's surrender of parental rights.

Family Court ActPINS proceedingPerson in Need of SupervisionClient-social worker privilegeCPLR 4508AbscondingPlacement orderAdjournment in contemplation of dismissalNeglect proceedingParental rights surrender
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,973 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