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. 12-19-00265-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2020

Angel Rose Lee v. State

Angel Rose Lee appealed her conviction for sexual assault of a child, challenging the trial court's admission of expert witness testimony and hearsay evidence. Lee, who pleaded guilty to four counts and received concurrent ten-year sentences, argued that the expert opined on the victim's credibility and that forensic interview recordings were inadmissible hearsay. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found no abuse of discretion in allowing the forensic interviewer to testify about observations of coaching behavior, rather than direct credibility, and upheld the admission of interview recordings as a basis for the expert's opinion and for impeachment, noting that appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury.

Sexual Assault of a ChildExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidenceChild Victim CredibilityForensic InterviewWitness CoachingEvidentiary RulingsAbuse of Discretion StandardAppellate ProcedureTexas Criminal Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. 570480/22
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2025

People v. Solomon (Jewel)

The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a judgment convicting Jewel Solomon of attempted assault in the third degree. The defendant had appealed the denial of his speedy trial motion, arguing that the People's certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) were invalid because they had not provided video and records from a forensic interview of a child victim by the Manhattan Child Advocacy Center (MCAC). The Court ruled that these materials were not subject to automatic discovery under CPL 245.20 (1) as they were not in the prosecution's control but rather in the possession of MCAC, an independent agency. Furthermore, the People were not required to request a discovery extension under CPL 245.70 (2) for these materials. The Court found that the People complied with CPL 245.20 (2) by attempting to obtain the records via subpoena.

Speedy TrialCriminal Procedure LawDiscovery ObligationsCertificate of ComplianceCertificate of ReadinessChild Advocacy CenterForensic InterviewSubpoena Duces TecumAppellate TermAttempted Assault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Florence B. v. Carol M.

Adam, an orphaned 6-year-old, is the subject of a Family Court custody dispute between two sets of paternal relatives: petitioners Florence and Eugene B., and respondents Carol and Thomas M. Adam has resided with Carol and Thomas for 21 months after suffering the loss of his parents and grandmother, and physical abuse. Petitioners allege Carol's physical and mental illnesses preclude suitable care. The court considered extensive testimony, forensic reports, and interviews with Adam, finding he is psychologically bonded with Carol and Thomas and wishes to remain with them. While acknowledging Carol's serious medical condition and future uncertainties, the court granted joint custody to both sets of relatives, with physical custody remaining with Carol and Thomas, and a provision for physical custody to revert to Florence and Eugene if Carol becomes unable to care for Adam. The decision emphasizes Adam's best interests, stability, and continued access to both families.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody DisputeOrphaned ChildBest Interests of the ChildJoint CustodyPhysical CustodyVisitation RightsPsychological BondingMental Health Evaluation
References
30
Case No. E2023-00902-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Leslie Burke v. State of Tennessee Department of Children's Services

Leslie Burke appealed a judgment upholding the denial of reasonable expenses after a contested case hearing by the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS). The case involved the substantiation of child sexual abuse allegations against Mr. Burke regarding a child named K.M., who had a history of psychiatric issues and making sexual abuse claims. While a forensic interview by K.M. formed the basis for DCS's initial substantiation, an administrative law judge (ALJ) later determined the evidence did not meet the preponderance standard, directing DCS to change the classification to 'Not Substantiated.' Mr. Burke then sought costs and attorney fees, but the ALJ denied this, finding no intent to harass. The trial court affirmed the ALJ's decision, and this Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of fees, concluding that DCS’s initial notice was warranted by existing law based on K.M.'s statements, even if the evidence later proved insufficient, and that there was no evidence DCS acted with a purpose to harm or harass Mr. Burke.

Child AbuseSexual Abuse AllegationsAdministrative Procedures ActAttorney FeesCostsSubstantiation of AbuseForensic InterviewEvidentiary SupportAppellate ReviewDepartment of Children's Services
References
14
Case No. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albert F. v. Stone

Albert F., a patient at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health and the Director of the Bureau of Forensic Services to apply for an order authorizing his unescorted furloughs. Albert F. argued that his treatment team, the Hospital Forensic Committee, and the Bureau of Forensic Services had all approved his furlough application based on clinical suitability and public safety. The respondents contended that the application was discretionary and that the Commissioner retained final authority. The court, presided over by Alan D. Oshrin, J., denied the respondents' motion to dismiss and the petitioner's motion to amend the petition. The court clarified that while the initial decision to apply for a furlough order is discretionary, if the Director of Forensic Services determines that two specific conditions (clinical warrant and public safety) are met, then the application becomes mandatory. The court ordered the petitioner to submit certified and updated documentary evidence to support their claims within 45 and 90 days, stating that if the conditions are met, the court will direct the Director to make the application.

MandamusCPLR Article 78Furlough OrderPsychiatric Patient RightsMental Hygiene LawDiscretionary vs Mandatory ActsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawBureau of Forensic ServicesKings Park Psychiatric Center
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 138 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