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

Hefner v. Grievance Committee for District 1-A

Hefner appealed the dismissal of his suit to set aside a private reprimand issued by the District 1-A Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas. The trial court dismissed the suit, asserting a lack of jurisdiction because Hefner did not reside in Dallas County, as per the statute. The appellate court determined that the statutory requirement to file suit in the county of residence was a matter of venue, not jurisdiction. Due to the Grievance Committee's failure to properly challenge venue according to Rule 86 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the improper venue was waived. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for a trial on the merits of Hefner's reprimand.

VenueJurisdictionWaiverPrivate ReprimandState Bar of TexasTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTrial Court ErrorReversalRemandAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. E1999-01291-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2000

Washshukru Al-Jabbar A'La. v. Christine Bradley

Plaintiff, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his civil suit against prison officials, alleging that the Inmate Grievance Procedure was operated capriciously and unjustly, alongside claims of malfeasance and civil rights intimidation. The Trial Court dismissed the case, citing the doctrine of res judicata for a specific claim related to a 1993 incident, and finding the remaining allegations to be conclusory and thus failing to state a claim. Furthermore, the Trial Court determined that the plaintiff lacked a liberty interest in the Tennessee Department of Correction's grievance policy for his procedural due process claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, upholding all three bases for dismissal. This decision emphasized that there is no constitutional right to a particular outcome or type of process in prison grievance proceedings and reiterated the broad discretion of the TDOC in managing disciplinary matters.

Inmate Grievance ProcedureCivil Rights ClaimsMalfeasanceProcedural Due ProcessRes JudicataConclusory AllegationsPrisoner RightsAccess to CourtsAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas

The Rattikin Title Company appealed a temporary injunction that barred it from preparing legal instruments or providing legal advice in transactions where it was not a direct party or agent. The Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas initiated the injunction, asserting that these activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, upholding the trial court's finding that the title company's actions, even if inadvertent due to intertwined operations with a law firm, were illegal under Texas law. The court reiterated that the 'practice of law' includes conveyancing and advising on legal instruments for consideration, and such acts by a corporation are enjoinable. The decision emphasized that the preservation of status quo in injunction cases involving law violations means ceasing the unlawful acts. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in not enjoining the title company from certain actions for mortgage loan companies, classifying it as a novel legal question.

Unauthorized Practice of LawTemporary InjunctionTitle InsuranceLegal InstrumentsCorporate Practice of LawAttorney-Client RelationshipGrievance CommitteeState BarTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1981

Milburn v. Mcniff

This case concerns an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the New York State Department of Correctional Services' inmate correspondence program. The plaintiff, an inmate named Louis Milburn, contended that his First Amendment rights were violated when his letters to the Poughkeepsie Journal were returned, allegedly due to censorship under Departmental Directive 4422. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially issued an order restricting the department from imposing greater restrictions on news media correspondence. However, the appellate court, finding a lack of factual findings and confusion regarding prior remittal instructions, again remitted the matter for a comprehensive factual hearing. This hearing is to determine the reasons for the letters' return, examine the department's directives on mail inspection and censorship, and balance governmental interests against inmates' constitutional rights, with the appeal held in abeyance.

Inmate CorrespondenceCensorshipFirst AmendmentConstitutional RightsCorrectional FacilitiesNews MediaDue ProcessAdministrative DirectivesDeclaratory JudgmentRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

An inmate (petitioner) at Great Meadow Correctional Facility filed a grievance seeking a wage increase, claiming certification as a quick chill food service worker. The grievance was initially granted but denied on administrative appeal. Petitioner then challenged this denial in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed due to lack of proof of certification. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the denial rational, as the petitioner failed to produce a certificate of completion and respondents' records did not indicate one was ever issued. Prior successful grievances on similar grounds were not considered conclusive.

Inmate WagesCorrectional FacilityGrievanceAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78Wage DisputeCertification RequirementQuick Chill Food Service WorkerLack of ProofJudgment Affirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Nunez v. White

Petitioner, a prison inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, filed a grievance concerning tailor shop conditions, including an alleged unwritten policy on performance evaluations, lack of sewing machine safety guards, and removal of seat cushions. The Central Office Review Committee (CORC) largely denied the grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed CORC's rational determination regarding performance evaluations and sewing machine safety. However, it modified the judgment, remitting the part of the petition concerning the seat cushion procedure to CORC for further adjudication, as that aspect of the grievance had not been fully addressed.

inmate grievanceprison conditionsperformance evaluationtailor shopsewing machine safetyseat cushion policyadministrative exhaustionCPLR article 78Central Office Review Committeeremittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carey v. General Electric Company

This case involves a motion by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (Union) to compel General Electric Company (Company) to arbitrate twelve grievances. The District Court, presided over by Judge Palmieri, examined questions of governing law, procedural arbitrability, substantive arbitrability, and the effect of NLRB jurisdiction. The court applied federal labor law, resolving doubts in favor of arbitration, and found most grievances arbitrable. However, arbitration for National Docket No. 4557 was denied because the Union's claim was based on an unlawful contract provision that discouraged membership in other unions.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureProcedural ArbitrabilitySubstantive ArbitrabilityFederal Labor LawNLRB JurisdictionSeniority RightsWage DisputesJob Classification
References
39
Case No. ADJ9154970
Regular
Sep 07, 2017

DEVIN SMITH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS INMATE CLAIMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an inmate's workers' compensation claim where the primary issue was whether the applicant was an employee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the initial findings to specify that the applicant sustained injury to his left thumb, which occurred in the course of his employment. While the employer disputed employee status, the Board affirmed the finding of injury to the thumb, deferring other claimed injuries. The Board's decision clarifies that the inmate was injured during his work duties, entitling him to benefits for the specific injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardinmate claimslegally uninsuredPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordersworkers' compensation administrative law judgeinjurycourse of employmentbody partleft thumb
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07843 [192 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Matter of Hackett

Mark J. Hackett, Jr., a suspended attorney, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District. He neglected a client's workers' compensation matter, failing to advise her properly regarding CMS debt and subsequently not responding to her inquiries. Hackett also failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation and defaulted in the disciplinary proceedings. The court suspended him from the practice of law for two years, citing harm to the client and disregard for the disciplinary process.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsneglect of client matterfailure to cooperatedisciplinary actionattorney suspensionWorkers' CompensationCMS debtRules of Professional Conductdefault judgment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 631 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