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

People v. Schulz

Judge Rosenblatt dissents in part from the Court's decision upholding the denial of a defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion without a hearing. The dissent argues for a hearing due to the high possibility of the defendant's actual innocence. Key evidence includes the primary victim, Ruiz, submitting a post-trial affidavit stating she is 90% certain the robber was another individual, Guilfoyle, whose photograph was disallowed at trial. The dissent highlights the temporal and geographical proximity, and similar modus operandi of Guilfoyle's other crimes, contrasting with the majority's view of 'remoteness'. Rosenblatt asserts that Ruiz's affidavit, especially following a 'borderline ruling' on the photograph, is too significant to dismiss summarily, and a hearing could provide an 'additional measure of truth' and serve the 'higher ends of justice'.

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefActual InnocenceCPL 440.10 MotionWitness IdentificationEvidentiary RulingDissenting OpinionModus OperandiAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. WR-95,984-01
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2025

Cobb, Travis

Travis Cobb was wrongly convicted of aggravated robbery in San Antonio, Texas, and served five years of a twenty-five-year sentence. New evidence, including DNA from the crime scene matching Dustin Cody McCall (who later confessed), along with revelations about a flawed eyewitness identification and misleading police information, conclusively demonstrated Cobb's actual innocence. Both the State and the habeas court agreed to grant actual innocence relief. This concurring opinion by Judge Richardson affirms the majority's finding, emphasizing the importance of upholding the established "Herculean" standard for actual innocence in Texas (Ex parte Elizondo). The opinion critiques fellow Judge Yeary's consistent attempts to impose a stricter, effectively unattainable standard for actual innocence, citing several historical cases where similar judicial disagreements arose despite overwhelming evidence of innocence.

Actual InnocenceHabeas CorpusDNA EvidenceWrongful ConvictionEyewitness IdentificationExculpatory EvidenceJudicial ConcurrenceStandard of ProofAggravated RobberyBexar County
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Town of Wallkill

Plaintiff Kimberly Mack sued the Town of Wallkill, Chief Coscette, and Officer Bruce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Mack alleged officers unlawfully arrested her at gunpoint and fabricated criminal mischief charges, with Coscette's purported involvement in inflating damages. The court denied defendants' summary judgment on false arrest and Monell claims, finding genuine factual disputes regarding probable cause and supervisory liability. However, malicious prosecution claims were dismissed as the underlying criminal charge was terminated on procedural grounds, not on the merits of Mack's innocence.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentQualified Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Police MisconductProbable CauseMonell ClaimConstitutional RightsExcessive Force
References
36
Case No. 12-12-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2014

2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 (Respondent: Latrice Whitaker, Robert Whitaker) v. State

Latrice and Robert Whitaker appealed a trial court's default judgment which forfeited their interest in a 2008 Mercedes-Benz CLS550 motor vehicle. The State of Texas initiated forfeiture proceedings, alleging the vehicle was contraband under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Whitakers failed to respond, leading to the default judgment. They subsequently filed motions for new trial, asserting defenses such as innocent ownership, the vehicle not being contraband, and an Eighth Amendment violation, and arguing lack of service. The trial court denied these motions, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that the Whitakers' factual assertions in their motions for new trial were not supported by evidence or affidavits, which is required by caselaw to set aside a default judgment.

default judgmentforfeiturecontrabandmotion for new trialabuse of discretionappellate reviewTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureEighth Amendmentcivil procedureappellate procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zaher A. El-Ali v. State

This case involves the seizure and forfeiture of a 2004 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. Appellant Zaher A. El-Ali challenged the forfeiture after the vehicle, which he owned, was used by Roberto Faustino in felony offenses. El-Ali initially asserted an innocent-owner defense but later abandoned it. On appeal, El-Ali argued that the innocent-owner defense violated due process under the Texas Constitution by requiring proof of a negative, and that the forfeiture statute unconstitutionally incentivized law enforcement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the innocent-owner defense added a layer of due process protection and that El-Ali failed to preserve his discovery complaint regarding the incentive argument.

Civil forfeitureInnocent owner defenseDue processTexas ConstitutionSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContrabandProperty rightsLaw enforcement incentivesStatutory interpretation
References
19
Case No. 03-07-00646-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2009

Zavian Thomas v. State

Zavian Thomas was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that his statements to police should have been suppressed, the evidence was factually insufficient, and the trial court erred by refusing a hearing on his motions for new trial. The Court of Appeals reviewed the suppression ruling, noting police did not tell Thomas he was not free to leave, and he was allowed to leave when he asked. Regarding factual sufficiency, conflicting medical testimonies were presented on whether the child's death was due to shaken baby syndrome or choking. The court deferred to the jury's resolution of this conflicting evidence. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial hearing, as Thomas's motions lacked affidavits and factual substantiation. The conviction was affirmed.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewMotion to SuppressCustodial InterrogationMiranda WarningsFactual SufficiencyInjury to a ChildShaken Baby SyndromeMedical TestimonyMotion for New Trial
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lasky

Defendant Clark Lasky, president of Employee Health Plan Administrators, Inc. (EHPA), was convicted in 1998 of embezzling funds from an employee welfare benefit plan and mail fraud. This stemmed from his failure to remit health benefit monies collected from employers to Local 119, Brotherhood of Industrial Workers (BIW). Lasky moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting coercion by the Government and belatedly claiming innocence. He cited a favorable civil judgment in a related case as support for his innocence. The Court denied Lasky's motion, finding his coercion claims contradicted by the extensive plea allocution record. The court concluded that his asserted innocence was a "change of heart" motivated by the favorable civil decision and apprehension about sentencing, and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary as his allegations contradicted the record.

Guilty Plea WithdrawalRule 32(e) F.R.Cr.P.Coercion ClaimVoluntariness of PleaPlea AllocutionEmbezzlementMail FraudERISA ViolationFederal Criminal ProcedureSentencing Guidelines
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 2,519 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