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. 12 Civ. 3763(AJN)
Regular Panel Decision

R.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs R.B. and M.L.B., parents of D.B., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. The State Review Officer (SRO) had previously affirmed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, which found D.B.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for D.B.'s enrollment in a private school, challenging the IEP's procedural and substantive adequacy and the appropriateness of the DOE's assigned school placement. The District Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and the assigned school appropriate, thereby denying tuition reimbursement.

Education LawIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerDue Process ComplaintTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentProcedural Adequacy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lerner v. FNB Rochester Corp.

This is a shareholder class action brought by Paul Lerner against First National Bank of Rochester, its corporate parent FNB Rochester Corp., certain former directors and officers, their former law firm, and Yapi Ve Kredi Bankasi A.S. The plaintiff alleged securities fraud, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding FNBR's financial health, particularly concerning its loan portfolio and a terminated merger agreement with Yapi. Claims were filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, along with common law claims. The court granted the motions to dismiss from all defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Consequently, the Amended Complaint and pendent common law claims were dismissed with prejudice, without leave to replead.

Securities FraudShareholder Class ActionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Corporate MismanagementBanking IndustryLoan LossesFailed MergerDuty to Disclose
References
16
Case No. M2002-02242-COA-R3-CV, 3300DV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2004

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.

This case involves a child custody dispute where the mother, B. M. M., and father, P. R. M., initially had a parenting plan granting the mother primary residential parent status with supervised visitation for the father due to the mother's sexual abuse concerns. The father petitioned for unsupervised visitation, and the mother sought to relocate to Florida with their daughter. The trial court denied the mother's relocation and granted the father unsupervised visitation, prompting the mother to defy the order by moving to Florida. Consequently, the father was granted emergency custody, the mother was found in criminal contempt, and was ordered to pay the father's private investigator fees and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions, concluding that the trial court correctly found no basis for the mother's sexual abuse allegations and that her actions were detrimental to the child's well-being and relationship with the father.

Child CustodyParental RelocationSupervised VisitationCriminal ContemptParental AlienationSexual Abuse AllegationsBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstancesAttorney's FeesPrivate Investigator Fees
References
12
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2009

Frenkel v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Plaintiff Zoltán Frenkel moved to amend his complaint to add a fifth cause of action, alleging that defendant OTB undermined a 2004 federal settlement agreement. OTB objected to the amendment, claiming futility and prejudice. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, analyzed the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), applying the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard for futility. Despite the court possessing ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, it determined that the proposed claim, a state law breach of contract, failed to satisfy New York’s Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 618's notice requirements. Consequently, Frenkel's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as futile.

Motion to AmendFutility of AmendmentPrejudiceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Breach of ContractSettlement AgreementAncillary JurisdictionNotice of ClaimNew York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 618
References
60
Case No. 07-CV-6149L
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2010

Johnson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER

Plaintiffs Keith Johnson, M.D., and Laura Schmidt, R.N., filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital. They alleged defendants defrauded the government by submitting false claims for anesthesiology services under Medicare/Medicaid, claiming physician supervision when it was absent. Johnson also alleged retaliatory discharge for reporting violations, and Schmidt claimed retaliation for refusing to alter medical records. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead fraud with particularity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Johnson cross-moved to amend the complaint to add claims of libel per se and prima facie tort against Dr. Lustik. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege that any fraudulent bills were actually presented to Medicare/Medicaid. The retaliation claims were also dismissed because the complaints were not made in furtherance of a qui tam action. Johnson's motion to amend was denied as frivolous and in bad faith. Defendants' request for sanctions was denied without prejudice.

False Claims ActQui TamMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudRetaliatory DischargePleading StandardsRule 9(b)Motion to DismissLeave to AmendLibel
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roebuck v. Guttman

Plaintiffs alleged that they were defrauded by defendants in the purchase of limited partnership units in Visual Enterprises. Defendants Martin L. Goldstein, Martin A. Halpern, Goldstein & Halpern, Allan T. Cannon, and Allan T. Cannon, P.C. moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing a failure to state fraud with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court found that plaintiffs did not allege facts supporting an inference that the G & H and Cannon defendants knowingly participated in the fraudulent misstatements or omissions. Additionally, the court determined that claims under section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were time-barred. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and directed the entry of a final judgment, certifying it for immediate appeal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to promote judicial economy.

FraudSecurities FraudLimited PartnershipMotion to DismissRule 9(b)Rule 54(b) CertificationStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionCivil ProcedureMisrepresentation
References
14
Case No. NO. 14-19-00384-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-40587)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2021

in the Interest of I.D.R., and A.B.R., Children

This appeal originates from a suit to establish a parent-child relationship concerning I.D.R. and A.B.R., initiated by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. The trial court entered a default judgment against Rejadia Rogers, the mother, for failing to appear, adjudicating issues of child support, custody, and access rights. Mother's motion for a new trial was subsequently denied. On appeal, Mother argued that her failure to appear was not intentional due to car trouble and medical complications, and she presented a meritorious defense. The appellate court, applying the Craddock test, found that Mother satisfied all three elements, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentParent-Child RelationshipChild SupportChild CustodyAccess RightsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseUnintentional Failure to Appear
References
20
Case No. 02-12-00141-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2012

in the Interest of S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., the Children

This case involves an appeal by a mother against the termination of her parental rights to her two children, S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., by the 431st District Court of Denton County. The Second District of Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The termination was based on grounds of endangering conduct due to the Mother's extensive history of drug abuse, including prescription medications and illegal drugs, which led to S.B.G.-R. being born addicted and multiple removals of the children by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Mother's challenges regarding jury instructions on wealth and the attorney ad litem's representation of S.I.-M.G. were overruled, with the appellate court finding no error in the lower court's decision.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbusePrescription Drug AddictionChild WelfareAppellate ReviewBest Interest of ChildSubstance Abuse TreatmentProbation ViolationJury Instructions
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Kalim Ahmed filed a lawsuit against the INS in February 1993, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a work authorization card, claiming he had applied for temporary resident status as a Special Agricultural Worker. The INS moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), noting Ahmed's non-responsiveness to discovery requests and the motion itself. The Court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Ahmed failed to demonstrate a clear right to the requested relief, thus lacking mandamus jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court found sufficient grounds to dismiss the case with prejudice due to Ahmed's prolonged and extensive inactivity, constituting a failure to prosecute his claim diligently.

MandamusJurisdictionFailure to ProsecuteImmigration LawWork AuthorizationTemporary Resident StatusSpecial Agricultural Worker ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDismissalJudicial Discretion
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 8,401 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