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. 14-08-00037-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Oluwole Ajayi Gabriel v. State

A jury found appellant OLUWOLE AJAYI GABRIEL guilty of theft of $200,000.00 or more, and the trial court assessed punishment at forty-five years confinement. Appellant raised four issues on appeal, contending errors in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of garbage and a private postal box, and alleging the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause. He also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for venue. The appellate court found no error, affirming the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no expectation of privacy in trash left for collection, that the postal box search was valid due to agency consent, and that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The court also found sufficient evidence to support venue in Fort Bend County.

theftFourth Amendmentmotion to suppresswarrantless searchprobable causesearch warrantvenuecredit card fraudprivate postal boxgarbage search
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabriel v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggregated theft of over $200,000, involving a scheme of fraudulently obtained credit cards and false identities. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from warrantless searches of his garbage and private postal box, arguing Fourth Amendment violations. He also contended the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause and disputed the sufficiency of evidence for venue in Fort Bend County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the searches lawful, the warrant supported by probable cause, and venue properly established.

TheftCredit Card FraudFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressWarrantless SearchGarbage SearchPostal Box SearchProbable CauseSearch WarrantVenue
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Marcario

A child protective services worker from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services sought a court order under Family Court Act section 1034 to search premises believed to house an abused child. The application stemmed from a hotline report alleging abuse by Joseph Marcario, which he and his wife denied, refusing to cooperate with the investigation. The court denied the application, finding the supporting affidavit, based on double hearsay from an unnamed and unreliable informant, lacked the probable cause required for a search warrant under the CPL and Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized the importance of due process for alleged perpetrators and also criticized the over 90-day delay in filing the application after the initial report.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court ActSearch Warrant ApplicationProbable CauseHearsay EvidenceAguilar TestDue ProcessFourth AmendmentChild Abuse InvestigationSuffolk County
References
4
Case No. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in Their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP D/B/A Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Augustin v. Jablonsky

Defendants moved to decertify the class regarding special damages, arguing that such claims are too individualized. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that 'garden-variety emotional distress' damages should be determined class-wide. The Court previously awarded general damages of $500 per strip search for the injury to human dignity. However, it ruled that claims for emotional distress damages beyond this general award are inherently individualized and require separate proof, thus granting the defendants' motion to not extend class certification to special damages. The Court also addressed pre- and post-judgment interest and the distribution of the general damages award.

Class ActionStrip SearchEmotional DistressGeneral DamagesSpecial DamagesDecertificationRule 23(b)(3)Constitutional ViolationCivil RightsHuman Dignity
References
48
Case No. ADJ7198861
Regular
Dec 06, 2013

MARK PAPISH vs. SOLANO GARBAGE COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE

In Mark Papish v. Solano Garbage Company, both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of a September 27, 2013 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted these petitions, citing the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to allow for a complete understanding of the record and to ensure a just decision after reconsideration. All future filings in this matter must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' Office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetitions for ReconsiderationSolano Garbage CompanyZurich InsuranceCannon Cochran Management ServicesMark PapishOakland District OfficeDelana E. LoweW.A.R.R.R.Ronnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2003

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Tonawanda Assessor

This case concerns an appeal challenging a determination by the Town of Tonawanda that certain properties owned by the petitioner are subject to special ad valorem levies for garbage collection. The properties, described as narrow corridors with electric and natural gas lines, allegedly generate no solid refuse. The Supreme Court, Erie County, dismissed the petition, concluding the properties were indeed "benefitted" and properly taxable. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the properties are capable of receiving the service, a potential or theoretical benefit being sufficient for taxation. The court emphasized that the innate characteristics of the property, rather than the owner's proclivities, dictate benefit.

Property TaxationAd Valorem LevySpecial DistrictsGarbage CollectionReal Property LawBenefit AssessmentTaxation ChallengeMunicipal ServicesErie CountyTown of Tonawanda
References
2
Case No. 06-02-00202-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2003

Jessie Lane Hitchcock v. State

Jessie Lane Hitchcock appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement officials violated his constitutional and statutory rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Officers detected marihuana smoke and odor from a parked car, leading to a pat-down search of Hitchcock after one occupant fled. During the search, officers found a rock-like substance believed to be crack cocaine in Hitchcock's pocket. The court considered whether the search was justified under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, specifically examining initial detention, Terry search, plain feel exception, inevitable discovery, and exigent circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the strong odor of marihuana provided probable cause for the search of Hitchcock's person.

Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionMotion to SuppressProbable CauseWarrantless SearchExigent CircumstancesInvestigative DetentionTerry StopPlain Feel Exception
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Postall

This case addresses a motion to suppress property seized from the employment locker of a United States Postal Service police officer, who was indicted for murder. The central issue revolves around the reasonableness of a warrantless search of a public employee's locker and the applicability of Fourth Amendment and New York constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court found no probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or valid consent to justify the search. It ruled that administrative regulations cannot override constitutional rights and that the Postal Inspector's broad interpretation of search authority was insufficient. Consequently, the search was deemed unreasonable under both Federal and State law, leading to the suppression of the seized property.

Warrantless SearchExpectation of PrivacyPublic Employee LockerFourth AmendmentNew York ConstitutionSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressUnited States Postal ServicePolice Officer MisconductWorkplace Search
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moss

Defendant Robert Moss, charged with methamphetamine offenses, moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. He claimed the search warrant was based on evidence from illegal trash searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Bryan Harris conducted multiple trash searches after an anonymous tip, finding items associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. The court examined the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and the principles established in *Katz v. United States* and *California v. Greenwood* regarding the expectation of privacy in discarded trash. The motion was denied, as the court ruled that individuals lose any reasonable expectation of privacy in trash once it is placed for collection at the designated time, regardless of its location within the curtilage.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureMotion to SuppressTrash SearchExpectation of PrivacyCurtilageAbandoned PropertyCriminal ProcedureMethamphetamineDrug Offenses
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 264 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