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

Placona v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. employee (petitioner) was discharged after his home's electric meter was found tampered with. The Utility Workers Union of America, Local 1-2 AFL/CIO filed a grievance on his behalf, which proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the discharge, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The petitioner sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court, Queens County, vacated the award and remitted for a new hearing. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, denying the application to vacate the arbitrator's award. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct or exceeded his power, and the award was not completely irrational, as the arbitrator was within his power to use the presumption of tampering.

Arbitration AwardVacate JudgmentEmployee DischargeMeter TamperingJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtCollective BargainingUnion GrievancePresumption of GuiltRational Basis
References
8
Case No. W2010-01687-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins

Ledarren Hawkins appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed his murder conviction, agreeing that the evidence did not warrant a jury instruction on defense of a third person, as Hawkins consistently testified he acted in self-defense. However, the Court reversed his conviction for tampering with physical evidence, ruling that tossing his shotgun over a short fence in plain view was "mere abandonment" and not "concealment" as defined by Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1). The Court found that Hawkins' actions did not materially impede the investigation or impair the evidence's value.

First Degree MurderTampering with Physical EvidenceSelf-DefenseDefense of a Third PersonJury InstructionsAbandonment DoctrineCriminal LawStatutory InterpretationDeadly ForceGang Violence
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodge v. Selsky

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 petition challenging two prison disciplinary determinations. The first report alleged harassment, refusing an order, violent conduct, and assaulting staff. The second concerned tampering with state property found in his cell. The appellate court found that while substantial evidence supported the charges of harassment, refusing a direct order (due to a guilty plea), and tampering with state property, it did not support the charges of violent conduct and assaulting staff. Consequently, the judgment was modified to annul these specific charges, and all related references are to be expunged from petitioner's institutional record, with the petition being granted to that extent. The judgment was otherwise affirmed.

Prison disciplinary rulesCPLR article 78 proceedingHarassmentRefusing a direct orderTampering with state propertyViolent conductAssaulting staffSubstantial evidenceAdministrative appealJudicial review
References
6
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
Case No. 11-11-00077-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2013

Joel Ramirez v. State of Texas

Joel Ramirez was convicted of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence after a bench trial and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment due to a prior felony conviction. He appealed the conviction and sentence on four issues. The case originated from Ramirez taking photographs of young girls in a store and then discarding a digital media card when confronted by a witness, subsequently leading to his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction for tampering with evidence. It also found no abuse of discretion in denying Ramirez's motion for continuance or his request to withdraw his jury waiver. Furthermore, the court declined to address the constitutionality of the improper photography statute, as Ramirez was not indicted or convicted under that specific charge in this case.

Criminal LawTampering with Physical EvidenceImproper PhotographySufficiency of EvidenceJury WaiverMotion for ContinuanceAppellate ReviewConstitutional VaguenessDigital Media CardFelony Enhancement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Criep v. Sentry Insurance

Plaintiff Leo Criep filed a lawsuit against Sentry Insurance alleging malicious prosecution, witness tampering, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from a prior lawsuit Sentry filed against Criep. The Court dismissed the malicious prosecution and witness tampering claims. However, the Court found Sentry liable for abuse of process, concluding that Sentry had an ulterior motive to coerce Criep's testimony against co-defendants and used improper tactics, including a false affidavit. Sentry was also found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court awarded Criep $25,000 in actual damages, of which $18,280.50 was allocated to the Texas Medical Liability Trust, and $100,000 in exemplary damages.

Abuse of processIntentional infliction of emotional distressMalicious prosecutionWitness tamperingTortious interferenceWorkers' compensation insuranceSubrogationExemplary damagesActual damagesAttorney misconduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Selsky

This is a pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court reinstated the plaintiff's complaint, except for a malicious prosecution claim. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims, which included allegations of due process violations, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, mail tampering, retaliation, and conspiracy. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no constitutional violations. Specifically, the Court determined there was no denial of due process, no subjective awareness of suicide risk for deliberate indifference, no actual injury from alleged mail tampering, no constitutionally protected speech for the retaliation claim, and insufficient class-based animus for the conspiracy claim. Consequently, all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Civil RightsPrisoner RightsSummary JudgmentDue ProcessDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentFirst AmendmentRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 1983
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alicea v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal where former employees of S & D Maintenance Company sued S&D and the City of New York, claiming third-party beneficiary status under a contract between S&D and the City for parking meter maintenance. The City terminated the contract due to fraud allegations, ceasing payments. Plaintiffs asserted the contract intended benefits for them, citing wage schedules and their long history with parking meter work. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment for the defendants, finding contractual ambiguity. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were merely incidental beneficiaries, not intended third-party beneficiaries, as the contract lacked explicit provisions for their benefit or enforcement rights, and payments were directed solely to S&D Maintenance.

Third-Party BeneficiaryContract LawSummary JudgmentIncidental BeneficiaryBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsPublic ContractsEmployee RightsContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. 03-14-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devvy Kidd John Kidd M. J. Shadden John Cole R.M.Daiey Tracy Stephens Patricia Stroyick Dorothy Morrow Charles Morrow Amy Williams David Williams Norman Kuehn Elizabeth Theiss Rebecca Gutierrez Marie Nugent Steve G. Crutchfield v. Texas Public Utility Commission AEP Texas Central Company AEP Texas North Company CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Texas-New Mexico Power Company And Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC

This brief concerns an appeal from the 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas, initiated by Devvy Kidd et al. against the Public Utility Commission of Texas and several utility companies. The appellants are challenging the Commission's denial of their request for a public hearing related to advanced metering technology, specifically in Project No. 40404, where they sought rulemaking proceedings regarding smart meters. The appellees argue that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such appeals and that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) only requires public hearings when a rule is actually adopted, which did not occur in Project No. 40404. They contend that the Commission did seriously consider appellants' concerns and provided opportunities for participation in other related proceedings where rules were adopted, such as Project No. 41111, for which the appellants failed to appeal the adopted rule. The appellees seek to affirm the trial court’s order granting their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the cause.

Smart MetersRadiofrequency EmissionsSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility CommissionAppellate LawJudicial ReviewRegulatory ComplianceTexas LawEnergy Policy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cioffi v. Lambert Meter Co.

The court unanimously affirmed the order. The defendant was granted leave to answer within ten days after the service of the order, conditional on the payment of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided by the court. The panel included Martin, P.J., Townley, Glennon, Dore, and Cohn, JJ.

Order AffirmedCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerUnanimous DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 54 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