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
Jul 13, 1984

Claim of Koerner v. Orangetown Police Department

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which awarded benefits for the fatal shooting of a policeman. The decedent, an off-duty officer, was killed when his wife accidentally discharged his .38-caliber Colt revolver at their home. The Board determined that the employer's requirement for the decedent to carry a firearm off-duty constituted a hazard of employment, leading to his death arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier contended the injury did not occur in the course of employment as the decedent was off-duty, at home, and asleep. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the unique obligation to carry a firearm at all times created a sufficient nexus between the accident and his employment duties.

Workers' CompensationOff-Duty InjuryPolice OfficerAccidental ShootingCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentHazardous InstrumentalityNexus to EmploymentAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tessler v. City of New York

The case involves an attorney, Mr. Tessler, who challenged the New York City Police Department's License Division's revocation of his handgun license following a domestic incident. The revocation was based on his alleged failure to properly safeguard his firearms and non-compliance with reporting requirements. While the court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged regulations and found sufficient evidence for violations, it ruled that the License Division's penalty determination was partly based on an erroneous interpretation of firearm storage rules. Consequently, the court partially granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, denied part of the petitioner's claims, and remanded the case for a reevaluation of the penalty, urging consideration of the petitioner's personal circumstances.

Handgun License RevocationSecond Amendment RightsAdministrative LawDomestic IncidentFirearm SafetyRegulatory InterpretationJudicial ReviewDue ProcessNew York City Police DepartmentLicense Division
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Powell

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's felony conviction for possessing a loaded firearm in the lobby of a men's shelter. The defendant argued the shelter constituted his 'home,' which would reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. The trial judge's instruction defined 'home' as not encompassing a 'public place' and referenced the Penal Law's definition of such. The Court of Appeals found the instruction proper, emphasizing that the shelter lobby, accessible to hundreds daily and the general public, lacked the requisite privacy to be considered a 'home' under the firearm possession statute. The ruling clarified the interpretation of 'home' in Penal Law § 265.02, distinguishing between private residential areas and publicly accessible common areas.

Gun ControlFirearm PossessionCriminal LawStatutory InterpretationDefinition of HomePublic PlaceJury InstructionsFelony vs. MisdemeanorAppellate ReviewMen's Shelter
References
20
Case No. 06-05-00005-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2005

Terrell Kinyon Davis v. State

Terrell Kinyon Davis appealed his conviction for the offense of felon in possession of a firearm to the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana. He contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding of firearm possession. The State presented evidence including the discovery of a silver automatic pistol hidden where Davis fled and witness testimony identifying him with a chrome pistol. Applying established legal standards, the appellate court found that the jury was entitled to conclude Davis had hidden the weapon, especially given the homeowners' denial and evidence of the attacker wearing gloves. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict.

Criminal LawFelon in PossessionFirearmSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexasTexarkanaJury VerdictConvictionLegal Standard
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. City of New York

Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, individual police officers, and Centre Firearms Co., Inc. following an alleged assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in 1982. Plaintiff sought to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, claiming it was mistakenly applied to all defendants instead of only Centre Firearms. District Judge MacMAHON denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the alleged mistakes by counsel were not grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court further awarded $500 in attorneys' fees to the defendants, noting that vacating the stipulation would not benefit the plaintiff as the federal claims lacked merit and state claims were time-barred.

Civil Rights ActionMotion to VacateStipulation of DiscontinuanceFed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)Excusable NeglectAttorneys' Fees AwardedPendent JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
11
Case No. 05-21-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2022

Flashdancer, Inc. v. John Fulcher III

Flashdancer, Inc., an employer, appealed a trial court's judgment awarding damages to its employee, John Fulcher III, in a common law negligence case. Fulcher, a bouncer, was shot in the finger by a fellow employee, Ashley Clark, who brought a firearm onto the premises in violation of company policy. Flashdancer argued insufficient evidence of breach of duty of care and attempted to invoke an assumption of risk defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Flashdancer breached its duty to provide a safe workplace by failing to enforce its no-firearm policy, which foreseeably caused Fulcher's injury. The court also noted Flashdancer's status as a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, precluding the assumption of risk defense.

NegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetyDuty of CareBreach of DutyProximate CauseNon-subscriber EmployerWorkers' CompensationFirearm IncidentBouncer
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abboud v. Cnty. of Onondaga

Noel Abboud, a corrections officer of Arab ancestry, sued the County of Onondaga and several Department of Correction employees for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and New York State law. Abboud alleged ongoing ethnic harassment, including derogatory comments, adverse employment actions like written reprimands, and denial of firearms training. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing statute of limitations and lack of merit, but the court found some compelling circumstances. The court partially denied the motion, allowing hostile work environment claims and certain retaliation and discrimination claims related to firearms qualification, a medical examination, and a restricted duty assignment to proceed. Most other claims, including conspiracy claims and some state law claims, were dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 Claims
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

Genovese v. Town of Southampton

Plaintiff Nancy Genovese sued the Town of Southampton and Lieutenant Robert Iberger, among others, alleging constitutional rights violations related to her detention and arrest on July 30, 2009, outside Gabreski Airport. Genovese was initially detained by Iberger for photographing a military base while in possession of a rifle, and subsequently arrested by Suffolk County officers for trespass. The Southampton defendants moved for summary judgment on claims of false arrest, excessive force, illegal seizure of her firearm, and a Monell claim against the Town. The Court granted summary judgment, concluding that Iberger had probable cause for the detention and lawful seizure of the firearm, and did not use excessive force. The Monell claim against the Town was also dismissed for lack of an underlying constitutional violation and insufficient evidence of an unconstitutional policy or custom. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFourth AmendmentFalse ArrestExcessive ForceIllegal SeizureProbable CauseQualified ImmunityPlain View DoctrineAutomobile ExceptionMonell Claim
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Arzberger

The government moved to modify Jason Arzberger's bail conditions, seeking to add restrictions mandated by the Adam Walsh Amendments, including a curfew, electronic monitoring, a prohibition on witness contact, and a ban on firearm possession. Arzberger challenged these amendments as unconstitutional, arguing violations of Fifth Amendment due process, Eighth Amendment excessive bail, and the separation of powers doctrine. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied the government's motion, ruling that the automatic imposition of a curfew with electronic monitoring, firearm prohibition, and witness contact ban without individualized assessment violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court also indicated that the Excessive Bail Clause might be violated as applied to Arzberger, pending further hearing. The separation of powers argument was rejected. The denial was without prejudice, allowing the government to present an individualized justification for the conditions.

Bail ConditionsAdam Walsh AmendmentsChild PornographyDue ProcessFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentExcessive Bail ClauseSeparation of PowersSecond AmendmentFirst Amendment
References
48
Case No. E2019-01864-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2021

State of Tennesse v. Ronnie Lucas Wilson

The defendant, Ronnie Lucas Wilson, was convicted of multiple offenses, including felon in possession of a firearm and attempted first-degree murder, stemming from a high-speed chase and shooting incident involving a police officer. The jury also found that the offenses qualified as Criminal Gang Offenses due to his affiliation with the Aryan Nation gang, leading to enhanced sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed his convictions but vacated the jury's findings regarding the Criminal Gang Offenses Statute, citing insufficient evidence to establish a direct nexus between his actions and the gang's benefit. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing related to the attempted first-degree murder and firearm possession convictions, and judgments were modified to remove the gang offense designation. The effective fifty-eight-year sentence was upheld due to the defendant's extensive criminal history and the severity of the offenses, with individual sentences adjusted for the removed enhancement.

Criminal Gang OffensesFelon in Possession of FirearmAttempted First Degree MurderPolice Officer ShootingHigh-Speed ChaseEvading ArrestFalse ReportCriminal Gang EnhancementSentencing AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 54 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