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. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2013

Carpenter v. City of New York

This case involves plaintiffs Heather Carpenter and Julio Jose Jimenez-Artunduaga suing the City of New York and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force during an Occupy Wall Street protest in 2011. The plaintiffs were arrested for criminal trespassing in a Citibank branch after being asked by bank employees to leave. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the false arrest claims against all defendants, finding that probable cause existed. The excessive force claims against the City were also dismissed due to a lack of Monell liability. However, the excessive force claims against the individual police officers, including Chief Esposito and Chief Hall, survived summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact were found, making them triable by a jury. Later motions for interlocutory appeal and partial judgment were denied, confirming the case would proceed to trial on the remaining excessive force claims.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983False ArrestExcessive ForceFourth AmendmentSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityMonell LiabilitySupervisory LiabilityOccupy Wall Street
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alhovsky v. Ryan

Alexander Alhovsky, a professional clown, accidentally left his battery-powered balloon pump, which was mistaken for a bomb, in a Starbucks. Police identified Alhovsky and later arrested him with significant force after encountering him with a second similar device. Alhovsky sued the City of New York and several individual officers for false arrest, excessive force, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the false arrest and IIED claims, citing probable cause and the high IIED standard. However, the court denied summary judgment for Officers Gaven, Morenzoni, and Paul on the excessive force claim, acknowledging disputed facts and witness testimony suggesting excessive force after Alhovsky was subdued.

Police BrutalityFalse ImprisonmentProbable CauseSummary JudgmentCivil Rights LitigationHoax Device StatuteQualified ImmunityIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMonell DoctrineNY Penal Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2003

Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Ass'n v. United States Air Force

Plaintiffs, including the Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association and individual landowners, challenged the United States Air Force's Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Noise Control Act (NCA). They alleged failures in adequately considering environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, responding to public comments, and implementing mitigation measures. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Air Force had taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences, sufficiently addressed public concerns, and complied with NEPA's procedural requirements regarding alternatives, mitigation, and FAA involvement. The Court found the agency's decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Environmental LawNEPANoise Control ActSummary JudgmentAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewAir Force TrainingEnvironmental Impact StatementRecord of DecisionAirspace Management
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skorupski v. County of Suffolk

Joseph Skorupski and his mother sued Suffolk County, its Police Department, and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and state law claims. The suit stems from Joseph's mistaken arrest and alleged assault on July 20, 1985, by officers who believed him to be an armed robbery suspect. During the arrest, Skorupski claims he was kicked, hit, threatened, and handcuffed before officers realized their error and released him. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing probable cause for arrest and denying excessive force. The court granted summary judgment for claims of unlawful arrest and against Detective Densing and municipal defendants, finding no policy of deliberate indifference to excessive force. However, the court denied summary judgment for claims of excessive force against other individual officers due to factual disputes and corroborating evidence.

Police misconductCivil rights violationExcessive forceFourth Amendment seizureQualified immunityMunicipal liabilityPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentPolice department policyUnlawful arrest
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Rodriguez v. McGinnis

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Section 1983 action against correctional officers McGinnis, Simmons, and Cook, alleging due process violations for an unwarranted 17-day keeplock confinement and Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment due to excessive force by Officer Cook. Magistrate Judge Grubin recommended dismissing claims against McGinnis and Simmons entirely, dismissing the due process claim against Cook, and denying dismissal of the excessive force claim. District Judge Rakoff conducted a de novo review, agreeing that the 17-day keeplock did not constitute an "atypical and significant hardship" under Sandin v. Conner, thus granting dismissal of the due process claim. However, the allegations of Officer Cook kicking and stepping on the plaintiff's back while handcuffed were deemed sufficient to proceed with the excessive force claim, and Cook's qualified immunity defense was denied at the pleading stage for this claim. The Court adopted all recommendations.

Pro Se LitigationCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Prisoner RightsExcessive ForceDue Process ClaimEighth AmendmentQualified ImmunityKeeplock ConfinementReport and RecommendationMemorandum Order
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baim v. Notto

Plaintiffs Travis Bairn and Donna Baim initiated a lawsuit against multiple law enforcement officers, alleging Fourth Amendment violations due to illegal entry and excessive force. During the proceedings, some defendants were dismissed or settled. At trial, only excessive force claims against Schenectady Police Department members proceeded to a jury. The jury found in favor of all individual defendants except Philip Notto, awarding Travis Bairn $10,000 in compensatory damages for excessive force at his apartment. Despite plaintiff's counsel conceding a set-off from a previous $25,000 settlement, rendering the judgment satisfied, Travis Bairn moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court determined Bairn was a "prevailing party" because common damages for the set-off were not proven, meaning the judgment against Notto was theoretically enforceable. After calculating the lodestar figure, the court reduced the attorney's fees by 50% due to the plaintiff's limited success at trial and also reduced claimed expenses. Ultimately, the motion for attorney's fees and expenses was granted for $10,572.74 against defendant Philip Notto.

Attorney's feesExcessive forceFourth AmendmentCivil rightsPrevailing partySet-offLodestar methodCompensatory damagesPolice misconductSettlement
References
37
Case No. 07-CV-3256 (JFB) (AYS)
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Cotter

Plaintiff Robert Houston filed this action against Thomas Cotter, John Weiss, and the County of Suffolk, alleging excessive force and Due Process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury found Officer Cotter liable for excessive force and the County of Suffolk liable for a Due Process claim, awarding a total of $30,000 in damages to Houston. The court, presided over by District Judge Joseph F. Bianco, then considered Houston's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Finding the requested hours and costs excessive due to overstaffing, vague billing, and unreasonable expenditures, the court applied significant reductions. Ultimately, the court awarded Houston $346,479.55 in attorneys' fees and $80,091.90 in costs against the liable defendants.

Section 1983Excessive ForceDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesLitigation CostsCivil RightsDamages AwardJury VerdictLodestar MethodBilling Records
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locke v. Bralley

William T. Locke, a minor, filed suit through his mother against Sheriff W. G. Bralley and his surety, Globe Indemnity Company, seeking damages for personal injuries. Locke was shot in the hand, leading to its amputation, while fleeing an illicit still during an attempted arrest by law enforcement officers from Wichita and Archer counties. The plaintiff alleged excessive force was used, resulting in his severe injury and loss of earning capacity. A jury trial denied relief, finding Locke was operating a still, the shot was fired by Deputy Kinkaid without intent to kill, and no excessive force was used by Bralley or his deputies. Despite the jury's finding of no damages, which was noted as contrary to undisputed facts, the judgment was affirmed on appeal, upholding the jury's findings regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and the force employed.

ArrestExcessive ForceFelonyIllicit StillJury FindingsDamagesAmputationSheriff LiabilitySurety BondCriminal Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kornegay v. New York

Leon Kornegay, an inmate, initiated a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) officials and state entities, alleging constitutional violations stemming from two incidents of excessive force by correctional officers. Defendants Glenn Goord, Lester Wright, Patrick Bryan, and John Dandrea filed for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Goord and Wright, citing a lack of personal involvement, and for Dandrea, concluding the force used was de minimis. However, the summary judgment motion for Bryan was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning his direct involvement or failure to intervene in an alleged excessive force incident. Plaintiff's separate motions to amend his complaint were denied without prejudice.

Inmate RightsExcessive ForceSupervisory LiabilitySummary JudgmentCorrectional OfficersConstitutional ViolationsEighth AmendmentSection 1983Failure to IntervenePrison Conditions
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,247 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