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

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas for Local 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

This case addresses a challenge by four Union Locals of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, against subpoenas duces tecum issued by a New York County Grand Jury. The subpoenas sought membership lists as part of an investigation into corruption within the carpentry and drywall industry. The Locals argued that the subpoenas violated their members' First Amendment associational rights and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Grand Jury's legitimate and compelling need for the lists to conduct its corruption investigation outweighed the asserted constitutional concerns. The court concluded that the subpoenas were neither overly broad nor burdensome, and the information sought was relevant to the ongoing investigation.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentAssociational RightsFreedom of AssociationUnreasonable Search and SeizureOverbreadthCompelling State InterestCorruption Investigation
References
24
Case No. Rutherford Circuit No. 31613; Appeal No. 01A01-9709-CV-00531
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1998

Allen E. Hasty, Judy Darlene Hasty v. Thomas R. Throneberry, Ind., D/B/A Throneberry Properties and Sharon Clutter

Plaintiffs Allen E. Hasty and Judy Darlene Hasty sued Thomas R. Throneberry for wrongful eviction, outrageous conduct, and defamation. Hasty, a maintenance worker for Throneberry, was fired and subsequently evicted from an apartment provided as part of his compensation. Throneberry terminated electricity and changed locks, forcing Hasty out. Hasty claimed these actions, combined with a prior work-related car accident, caused Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and major depression, for which he had already received worker's compensation benefits. The trial court dismissed defamation and outrageous conduct claims but allowed the wrongful eviction claim and later permitted amendment to include intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Hasty $500 for property loss and $10,000 for mental damages, attributing 55% of the latter to Throneberry's actions, resulting in a total judgment of $6,000. Throneberry appealed, arguing the relationship was employer-employee, not landlord-tenant, precluding wrongful eviction, and that PTSD recovery was barred by worker's compensation exclusivity and lack of medical certainty. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if it was an employer-employee relationship, Throneberry had a duty to refrain from intentional, willful, or wanton conduct causing injury or loss, which Hasty's complaint alleged and the jury found. The court also ruled that worker's compensation exclusivity does not apply if the defendant intended to cause injury, which was alleged. Finally, Dr. Singh's testimony was found sufficient regarding causation, and apportionment of damages was a jury matter.

Wrongful EvictionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer-Employee RelationshipLandlord-Tenant DisputeWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityProximate CausationMedical Expert TestimonyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor DepressionComparative Fault
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. 03A01-9709-CH-00395
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1998

Deborah H. Steele v. Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc., and David Twombley - Concurring

Deborah H. Steele sued her former employer and supervisor, Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc. and David Twombley, for sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Steele $1.2 million in compensatory and $60,000 in punitive damages, later remitted to $850,000 compensatory. On appeal, the Court affirmed the jury's finding of hostile environment sexual harassment against both defendants, concluding that Twombley was individually liable as an aider and abetter, and upheld the outrageous conduct claim against Twombley. However, the Court reversed the finding of quid pro quo sexual harassment against Superior due to a lack of evidence of tangible job detriment. The Court found no reversible error in the admission of evidence or jury instructions, and upheld the attorney's fees awarded against Twombley.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressOutrageous ConductTennessee Human Rights ActEmployer Vicarious LiabilitySupervisor Individual LiabilityAiding and Abetting HarassmentCompensatory DamagesRemittitur of Damages
References
23
Case No. No. 07-16-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC

This case involves an appeal by attorney William A. Brewer III against a sanctions order issued by Judge Ruben G. Reyes of the 72nd District Court, Lubbock. The trial court imposed sanctions on Brewer for his role in conducting a pretrial telephone survey, deemed a 'push poll,' designed to improperly influence the jury pool in a products liability/wrongful death case where Brewer represented Titeflex Corporation. Brewer challenged the sanctions, arguing lack of bad faith and claiming the conduct did not significantly interfere with a core judicial function, and that the sanctions were excessive. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of Brewer's intentional bad faith conduct. The court concluded that the survey significantly interfered with the court's core function of empaneling an impartial jury and that the imposed monetary sanctions and ethics training were appropriate and not excessive.

SanctionsAttorney MisconductJury TamperingPush PollTrial ProcedureJudicial DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
39
Case No. 01-14-0799-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2014

Barbara Regina Schlein v. Anthony Griffin

This legal brief pertains to an appeal and cross-appeal originating from a civil dispute in Galveston County, Texas. Anthony P. Griffin, as the original plaintiff, sued Barbara Regina Schlein for breach of a legal services contract, seeking unpaid attorney's fees and costs. Schlein filed counterclaims, including allegations of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unconscionable conduct under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The jury found in favor of Griffin on the breach of contract, awarding him substantial damages and attorney's fees. Despite jury findings of unconscionable conduct by Griffin and an award of $5,000 in additional damages to Schlein, the trial court's final judgment denied Schlein any recovery on this specific claim, while affirming Griffin's awards. Griffin, as the cross-appellant, challenges the unconscionable conduct finding and the additional damages, asserting legal exemptions under the DTPA and the absence of actual damages.

Legal Services ContractBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Unconscionable ConductProfessional Service ExemptionActual DamagesExemplary DamagesJury VerdictCross-Appeal
References
22
Case No. 2-03-039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2003

In Re JTG

P.G. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her four children (J.T.G., H.N.M., M.D.M., B.M.L.). S.L., the father of B.M.L., also appealed the termination of his parental rights to B.M.L. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) initiated the termination proceedings due to concerns about P.G.'s and S.L.'s continued drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence (including P.G. stabbing S.L. and B.M.L.'s head being bumped), P.G.'s suicide attempt while pregnant, and noncompliance with family service plans. The jury found grounds for termination based on endangering environment and conduct, and the trial court subsequently terminated their parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the endangering environment and conduct of both parents. The court also rejected P.G.'s arguments regarding jury instructions and the denial of a disinterested expert witness, and S.L.'s claims about peremptory challenges and the admission of prior bad acts.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewDue ProcessJury InstructionsEvidence SufficiencyBest Interest of the Child
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 5,213 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