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
Dec 08, 1994

United States v. Taylor

Matthew Taylor, a co-founder of United Brooklyn (UB), was convicted of attempted extortion and extortion under the Hobbs Act at two construction sites where Flintlock Construction Company was the principal contractor. Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence linked him directly to extorting "money for a Coordinator and employment for members of United Brooklyn" as charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four. He also sought a new trial citing recanted testimony from a key witness, Andrew Weiss. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence, including Taylor's role as the de facto head of UB and his active involvement in its extortionate schemes, sufficiently supported the conviction under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found that the alleged recantation was not material and did not undermine the verdict, given the compelling evidence of Taylor's guilt in a "long and persistent scheme" of extortion.

Hobbs ActExtortionAttempted ExtortionConspiracyAiding and AbettingConstruction IndustryRacketeeringOrganized CrimeMotion for AcquittalMotion for New Trial
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reuters America, Inc. v. Sharp

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that imposes taxes on information services while exempting newspapers. Reuters, an electronic news service provider, argued that this tax scheme violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of both the federal and state constitutions. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes for its services, which Reuters paid under protest before filing a lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of the State, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the Chief Justice. The court held that the tax scheme was constitutionally applied to Reuters, stating it did not suppress ideas or viewpoints, was a generally applicable sales tax, and did not unfairly target a small group of the press. Furthermore, the court determined that the newspaper exemption was based on format distinctions, not content, and was rationally related to the legitimate state interests of promoting literacy and administrative convenience.

Constitutional LawTax LawFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPress FreedomInformation ServicesNewspaper ExemptionSales TaxTexas Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cantarella

This case involves several defendants indicted for enterprise corruption and related crimes concerning a criminal enterprise known as the "Post Circulation Crew" operating within the New York Post's circulation department. The enterprise, associated with the Bonnano crime organization, engaged in extortion, coercion, falsification of business records, larceny, and bribery for financial gain. Schemes included usury, influencing union rules, larcenous "returns" schemes, and payroll scams involving non-existent employees. The court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the vagueness of the enterprise corruption statute and the interpretation of "pattern of criminal activity" and "individual culpability." It provides a detailed analysis of the evidence for each defendant. The court ultimately dismisses the enterprise corruption count against Richard Cantarella, Vincent DiSario, Anthony Michele, Gerard Bilboa, Corey Ellenthal, and Michael Fago due to insufficient evidence of three connected criminal acts or intent to further the criminal enterprise. However, the enterprise corruption count is sustained for Anthony Turzio based on his involvement in forgery and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in the "Murro" payroll scheme.

Enterprise CorruptionOrganized CrimeRacketeeringCriminal EnterprisePattern of Criminal ActivityGrand LarcenyForgeryFalsifying Business RecordsConspiracy to DefraudSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack International Corp. v. Vohra

McCormack International Corp. brought an action against multiple defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion. The plaintiff claimed that defendants used a scheme involving bad checks and threats from an organized crime figure to remove McCormack from a Tudor Hotel renovation project. The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, dismissing the RICO claims for failure to establish a 'pattern of racketeering activity,' specifically lacking sufficient allegations of furtherance of fraud by mail and continuity of criminal activity for extortion. Additionally, the court denied plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint, rejected defendants' motion for sanctions, and denied plaintiff's motion for a retroactive enlargement of time to file objections to a prior report.

RICORacketeeringMail FraudWire FraudExtortionCivil ProcedureMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 12(b)(6)Sanctions
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haviland v. J. Aron & Co.

The case concerns Leo Haviland's claims against J. Aron & Company, an affiliate of his former employer Goldman, Sachs & Co., after Haviland discontinued his action against Goldman. Haviland alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, specifically mail and wire fraud, and attempted extortion, alongside a common law fraud claim. He asserted that Goldman and Aron defrauded him by making false promises about a "Chinese wall" to prevent the disclosure of confidential client information and later attempted to extort him for such information, which led to his termination and reduced compensation for his refusal to cooperate. The court granted Aron's motion to dismiss, ruling that Haviland lacked standing under RICO because his alleged injuries were not directly or proximately caused by the predicate racketeering acts. The court found that the schemes were primarily directed at Goldman's clients, and Haviland's injuries, stemming from his refusal to participate, were too remote to confer RICO standing. Consequently, the RICO claims were dismissed, and the common law fraud claim was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActMail FraudWire FraudHobbs ActStanding (Law)Motion to DismissProximate CauseWrongful TerminationWhistleblowerConfidential Information
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1994

National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co.

Plaintiffs, the National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) and Local 41 Funds, initiated this action under ERISA to recover delinquent contributions from Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., Kenneth P. Heary, and Edwin W. Heary. The defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party complaint, alleging RICO violations and other claims against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA), Local 41, and individual union officers, claiming the collective bargaining agreements were invalid due to an alleged extortion scheme. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge Arcara reviewed de novo and adopted. The Court granted NEBF's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims. Motions to dismiss third-party claims against IBEW and NECA were granted, while Local 41's and other individual third-party defendants' dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part, primarily concerning RICO allegations. The case was referred back for damages determination.

ERISARICOLMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentRacketeering ActivityExtortionHobbs ActFraud in the Inducement
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesware, Incorporated v. State

The Attorney General of Texas sought injunctive relief against Wesware, Incorporated for operating a 'pyramid selling scheme' in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court issued a temporary injunction, which Wesware appealed. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding sufficient evidence of deceptive trade practices and that the scheme constituted a lottery. The court rejected Wesware's arguments that the plan was fully explained, thus not deceptive, and that the injunction was too broad or violated procedural rules. The decision emphasized that the 'pyramiding of chance upon chance' was the gravamen of the scheme, justifying the injunction.

Deceptive Trade PracticesPyramid SchemeTemporary InjunctionLotteryAbuse of DiscretionReferral SalesTexas LawConsumer ProtectionInterlocutory AppealState Attorney General
References
26
Case No. 7951 of 1987
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Forde

This case addresses the legal sufficiency of an indictment for extortion stemming from the enforcement of an otherwise legal contract. Defendant Martin Forde, a business agent for Local 608, allegedly extorted $2,000 from Roger Berk, president of Haywood-Berk Flooring Company, by threatening to use union contract clauses to harm Berk's business. The lower court dismissed the indictment, reasoning that the threatened act was lawful. However, the appellate court reversed, ruling that a lawful act becomes criminal when used to extort money. The indictment was reinstated, affirming sufficient evidence for Grand Jury consideration.

ExtortionGrand LarcenyBribe ReceivingLabor OfficialIndictment SufficiencyCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion CorruptionBusiness AgentPrima Facie EvidenceCriminal Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2005

King v. State

Gayle King was convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. She was sentenced to two concurrent years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King appealed, raising eight issues including denial of a requested jury charge instruction on a defensive issue, unsupported restitution, unconstitutionality of the pyramid promotional scheme statute, legal insufficiency of evidence for pyramid scheme and theft, selective prosecution, omission of a requisite knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy violations, and denial of a motion for new trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and no reversible error on the points raised.

Pyramid SchemeTheft by DeceptionLegal SufficiencyJury Charge ErrorMistake of Fact DefenseConstitutionality ChallengeFirst AmendmentOverbreadthVaguenessDouble Jeopardy
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 326 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