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. No. 47
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

The People v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Sexual Assault Reform Act's (SARA) school grounds condition, codified in Executive Law § 259-c (14), violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution when applied to offenders whose crimes predated the 2005 SARA amendments. Petitioner Danny Rivera, convicted in 1986 and later designated a level three sexually violent offender, faced prolonged incarceration due to his inability to find SARA-compliant housing. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Rivera failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof, that the SARA condition's effects are so punitive as to negate its civil intent, thereby not violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Ex Post Facto ClauseSexual Assault Reform Act (SARA)Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Residency RestrictionParole ConditionsIncarcerationRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawPunishmentCivil Remedy
References
83
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ciafone v. Kenyatta

The case concerns Salvatore Ciafone, a former police officer, who was shot by Ibn Kenyatta in 1974. After Kenyatta received a medical malpractice settlement in 2001, Ciafone and his wife sued him under New York's "Son of Sam Law" (Executive Law § 632-a) to recover damages. Kenyatta challenged the law's constitutionality, arguing it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court denied his motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court ruled that the Son of Sam Law is civil, non-punitive, and serves the legitimate public purpose of victim compensation without violating constitutional provisions.

Ex Post Facto LawContract ClauseSon of Sam LawCrime Victim CompensationStatutory ConstitutionalityCivil RestitutionAppellate DecisionDue ProcessCriminal InjuryLegislative Intent
References
25
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. No. 07-87-0137-CR
Regular Panel Decision

Grimes v. State

Judge Baird dissents from the majority's decision regarding the retroactive application of Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 44.29(b). He argues that the Texas Constitution's Article I, Section 16, which prohibits 'retroactive law,' is broader than the federal ex post facto clause and applies to criminal cases, not just civil matters. Baird contends that the retroactive application of Article 44.29(b) unconstitutionally deprives the appellant of a vested right to a new trial for errors in the punishment phase, a right the appellant likely relied upon for trial strategy. He also disputes the majority's assertion that the retroactive law prohibition does not apply to statutes merely affecting procedural matters, arguing that a procedural label does not immunize a law from scrutiny if it affects substantial rights. Furthermore, Baird states that Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 311.022 mandates prospective operation unless a statute is expressly made retrospective, which is not the case for Article 44.29(b).

Ex post factoRetroactive lawTexas Constitution Article I Section 16Criminal procedurePunishment phaseVested rightsTrial strategyStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewJudicial dissent
References
18
Case No. Adv. P. No. 10-04050(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Hough v. Margulies (In re Margulies)

This post-remand memorandum decision addresses the dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and indemnification under New York Insurance Law § 3420. Plaintiff Dennis Hough sought to declare a judgment against Joshua S. Margulies non-dischargeable due to willful and malicious conduct, and to compel USAA Casualty Insurance Company to indemnify Margulies. The Court determined that Margulies acted with substantial certainty of injury to Hough, thus his debt was non-dischargeable. Furthermore, the incident was not considered an "accident" under state insurance law, leading to the dismissal of Hough's indemnification claim against USAA.

Bankruptcy DischargeWillful InjuryMalicious InjuryInsurance CoverageIndemnification ClaimAutomobile IncidentNew York Insurance LawRes Judicata DoctrineSubjective Intent StandardSubstantial Certainty Test
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castorina v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

Plaintiff, Guiseppe Castorina, a longshoreman, sued Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc. under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and general maritime law for asbestosis sustained from asbestos exposure on Lykes vessels between 1965 and 1972. The court addressed issues of laches and the applicability of pre- or post-1972 LHWCA amendments, determining the 'date of injury' for asbestosis cases is the date of manifestation (diagnosis in 1979), making post-1972 law applicable. Under this law, the vessel owner owed a duty of ordinary care and to warn of latent dangers, but Lykes was found not negligent as the dangers of asbestos were not known or reasonably foreseeable to them during the exposure period. The court also rejected the unseaworthiness claim, concluding that the injury stemmed from the inherent nature of the cargo itself, not a defect in the vessel or its appurtenances. Therefore, the court found for the defendant.

AsbestosisLongshoremanMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessLatency PeriodOccupational DiseaseLHWCA AmendmentsDate of InjuryCargo Liability
References
37
Case No. ADJ6622843
Regular
Dec 24, 2012

EDWARD SCHROEDER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of permanent total disability benefits, claiming his rights were violated by reliance on an unavailable transcript and the creation of an "ex post facto" law. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming its prior decision that vocational expert testimony did not properly rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating. The Board clarified that it applied existing California law, specifically *Ogilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which limits rebuttal evidence to factors directly attributable to the work-related injury, not general economic conditions. The case is returned to the trial level for rating permanent disability based solely on the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersVocational Expert TestimonyScheduled Disability RatingPermanent Total DisabilityDue ProcessEx Post Facto LawOgilvie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Permanent Disability Schedule
References
6
Case No. 04-82-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1982

Ex Parte Hovermale

Chester B. Hovermale, the relator, was confined for contempt due to his failure to pay his former wife, Elizabeth M. Hovermale, a portion of his military retirement pay as mandated by their divorce decree. He initiated a habeas corpus proceeding, contending that the division of military retirement benefits in the divorce decree was void, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McCarty v. McCarty. The Court of Appeals of Texas, en banc, distinguished McCarty and Hisquierdo based on varying types of preemption. The court declined to retroactively apply McCarty, emphasizing the doctrines of res judicata, finality of judgments, and the importance of stability in family law. Consequently, the court denied Hovermale's request for relief and ordered his remand to the custody of the Sheriff of Bexar County, explicitly rejecting the precedent set by Ex parte Buckhanan.

Preemption DoctrineSupremacy ClauseRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFinality of JudgmentsMilitary Retirement BenefitsCommunity Property LawHabeas CorpusContempt of CourtDivorce Decrees
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 18,294 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