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

Young v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Plaintiff Julia Young filed an action against State Farm Automobile Insurance Company alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and malicious harassment. State Farm moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed the malicious harassment claim, finding that the relevant Tennessee statutes did not apply to age-based harassment or the alleged conduct. Summary judgment was granted to State Farm on all age discrimination claims, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or show pretext for discrimination. However, the court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment on all retaliation claims, concluding that material issues of fact existed regarding a causal connection between Young's protected activity (filing EEOC complaints) and the alleged adverse employment actions, particularly the denial of promotion and other forms of harassment.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentADEA ClaimsTHRA ClaimsMalicious HarassmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CasePretextCausal Connection
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowles v. New York

Plaintiff Tony Bowles filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, verbal harassment, and excessive force against the State of New York, Riverbank State Park, and Officer J. Hardison. Bowles claimed harassment and verbal abuse in Riverbank State Park by Officer Hardison, leading to an arrest on October 15, 1997, where he was allegedly pushed and shoved. He was issued two summonses for disorderly conduct, one dismissed and the other adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the State of New York and that Riverbank State Park is not a "person" under § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing claims against the State and Park due to immunity and lack of "person" status, respectively, and also dismissing false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and verbal harassment claims for various legal reasons.

42 U.S.C. § 1983False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionExcessive ForceVerbal HarassmentEleventh Amendment ImmunityPro Se LitigationJudgment on the PleadingsDisorderly ConductAdjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pugach v. Borja

This case involves a dispute between plaintiff Burton N. Pugach, a disbarred lawyer, and defendant Evangeline Borja, following the termination of their extramarital relationship. Pugach, along with plaintiff Linda Pugach, sued Borja and co-defendants Patient Care, Bancy, and Chua, alleging malicious prosecution and other torts. Pugach had been previously arrested multiple times based on the defendants' reports, facing charges including aggravated harassment, menacing, sexual abuse, and criminal contempt for violating an order of protection. Although acquitted of most serious charges, Pugach was convicted of one count of harassment in the second degree. The court dismissed Pugach's malicious prosecution claim, finding that his harassment conviction precluded a "favorable termination" of the criminal proceeding, a necessary element for such a claim. Additionally, the court found probable cause for the original arrests, which Pugach failed to rebut. Linda Pugach's separate claim for breach of confidentiality of medical records was dismissed as time-barred. Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss the second and fifth causes of action were granted.

Malicious prosecutionProbable causeFavorable terminationHarassment convictionCriminal contempt acquittalOrder of protection violationLoss of consortiumBreach of confidentialityStatute of LimitationsPro se representation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2007

Putnam v. County of Steuben

This case involves an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs on their cause of action for malicious prosecution. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging the liability verdict and the award of damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to set aside the liability verdict, concluding that the jury rationally found the defendant's employees acted with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights by initiating a criminal prosecution without probable cause. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, determining that the lower court erred in setting aside the damages award, as damages for malicious prosecution can include those for arrest and imprisonment, and no false arrest claim was present to necessitate a separate instruction on avoiding duplicate awards. The judgment was unanimously affirmed without costs, and the order was modified to deny the defendant’s postjudgment motion in its entirety.

Malicious ProsecutionJury VerdictDamages AwardLiabilityCriminal ProsecutionProbable CauseActual MaliceFalse InstrumentAcquittalPostjudgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. Docket No. 39; Docket No. 41
Regular Panel Decision

Mims v. Carrier Corp.

Quentin T. Mims, an employee of Carrier Air Conditioning, alleged hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas law. Mims claimed he was subjected to offensive sexual comments and gestures, and faced retaliation after reporting the behavior. Individual defendant Bob Chauvin counter-sued Mims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The court granted Carrier's motion for summary judgment, finding Mims failed to establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment or retaliation, and his emotional distress claim lacked merit. The court denied Chauvin's motion for summary judgment on his counterclaims, citing genuine questions of material fact. All of Mims' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Hostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActRetaliation ClaimIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPerceived Sexual OrientationMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of Process
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanger v. Busch (In Re Busch)

The case involves Jacqueline Sanger's attempt to deem a $430,232.20 judgment debt against David Busch nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) for "willful and malicious injury." The debt originated from a default judgment in a District Court action where Sanger alleged sexual harassment by Busch and his company, Albany Air Systems, Inc., under Title VII and state law, leading to awards for compensatory and punitive damages. The Bankruptcy Court, however, denied Sanger's claim. It found that while Busch's actions were malicious, Sanger failed to prove that Busch specifically *intended* to cause her injuries, a critical element for "willfulness" under § 523(a)(6) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in *Kawaauhau v. Geiger*. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, allowing the debt to be discharged.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeability of DebtWillful and Malicious InjurySexual HarassmentTitle VIICollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionPunitive DamagesIntentional TortChapter 7 Bankruptcy
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 946 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