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

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Leonard

This case concerns appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Delaware County, entered on September 19, 1983. The first order dismissed the respondent's cross-petition for a downward modification of a prior support order. The second order found the respondent in willful violation of a December 9, 1982 support order, fixing arrears at $665. The respondent had previously received a suspended 60-day jail sentence conditioned on keeping support payments current. The respondent argued that his unemployment and reduced workers' compensation benefits justified a modification and that the finding of willful violation was erroneous. The appellate court conducted a careful review of the record and affirmed the Family Court’s findings and determinations without costs.

Family LawChild SupportSupport OrderArrearsWillful ViolationModificationAppealUnemploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2002

Kemp v. Kemp

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County concerning the modification of a prior custody order for two sons. The parties, who divorced in 1999, initially had a separation agreement granting joint legal custody with the respondent having primary physical custody. However, due to the respondent's subsequent criminal convictions, probation violation, and incarceration in January 2002, the petitioner gained actual physical custody of the children. The Family Court subsequently awarded sole legal and physical custody to the petitioner, citing several factors including the respondent's incarceration, lack of credibility, failure to address self-destructive behavior, and the stable home environment provided by the petitioner. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding it to be based on a sound and substantial record, and rejected the respondent's contentions regarding joint custody and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Custody ModificationFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildParental FitnessChange in CircumstancesIncarcerationMental Health EvaluationCredibility AssessmentJoint CustodySole Custody
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Von Dwingelo v. Dwingelo

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Clinton County, which granted the petitioner's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, married in 1991, had a daughter, Crystal, born in 1992, and initially shared joint custody with the respondent having physical custody. In 1998, the petitioner sought physical custody, and the Family Court ruled in his favor, prompting the respondent's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the modification, citing substantial changes in circumstances over four years that warranted a change to ensure Crystal's best interests. The respondent's unstable lifestyle, including frequent moves, a welfare fraud conviction, and disregard for visitation, contrasted with the petitioner's established stability and efforts to maintain a relationship with his daughter.

custody modificationchild custodybest interest of the childparental fitnessfamily courtvisitation rightsappellate reviewparental stabilityresidential changeswelfare fraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michaels v. Hillman

This judicial opinion by Rodenbeck, J. addresses the modification of a temporary injunction order. The judge found that the fourth paragraph of the injunction, which broadly restrained the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America from 'in any way' interfering with the plaintiffs' business, was too encompassing. The language is to be refined to specify interference 'by any of the acts or things herein restrained' to permit lawful union activities, such as striking, which are considered legal rights. However, the rest of the injunction, prohibiting specific actions like assault, intimidation, loitering, using abusive names, publishing false statements, and inducing contract breaches, was upheld as reasonable. The court underscored that while labor organizations can use lawful means to advance their members' interests, they cannot conspire or act solely to harm others or engage in activities that could lead to a breach of public peace or interfere with existing contracts.

InjunctionLabor DisputeStrikeCoercionIntimidationPicketingBoycottingContract InterferencePublic PeaceUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Capone

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Otsego County Family Court which modified a prior custody order. The petitioner and respondent, divorced parents of two sons with special needs, Christopher and Anthony, were initially granted joint custody with physical custody to the respondent. The petitioner sought to modify this arrangement due to concerns about the respondent's care for the children, particularly regarding Anthony's behavioral issues and alleged physical violence by the respondent. A family offense petition was also filed. The Family Court transferred physical custody to the petitioner and allowed the children to relocate to Kentucky, while maintaining joint custody. The family offense petition was dismissed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the change in circumstances and the children's best interests supported the modification, particularly for Anthony, as Christopher had aged out of Family Court jurisdiction. The appellate court upheld the Family Court's assessment of parental fitness and the decision to allow relocation.

Custody ModificationFamily OffenseChild CustodySpecial Needs ChildrenRelocationParental FitnessBest Interests of the ChildDomestic ViolenceTemporary Order of ProtectionFamily Court Appeal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chery v. Richardson

The father appealed the Family Court's denial of his petition to modify a 2004 custody order, seeking sole custody of his daughter. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification. The court noted that while the mother had prior parenting lapses, these issues, including hygiene and school attendance, had been ameliorated. The decision also considered the child's primary bond with her mother and half-siblings, the social worker's testimony, and the child's and her attorney's preference for custody to remain with the mother. Joint custody was deemed unfeasible due to the parents' inability to communicate.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationBest Interests of the ChildChange in CircumstancesParental FitnessChild PreferenceSibling RelationshipsFamily Court AppealAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jan S. v. Leonard S.

This case concerns an ex-wife's motion for an upward modification of her $100 weekly lifetime alimony, established in a 1974 divorce decree, from her wealthy ex-husband. Despite suffering from mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, a Special Referee recommended denying her request. The court, presided over by Justice Matthew F. Cooper, confirmed the Referee's report, finding no substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances. The court ruled that her status as a "public charge" and the effects of inflation were not new developments justifying an increase, emphasizing that the ex-husband is not solely responsible for her continued difficulties. The ex-wife's motion for increased alimony and attorney's fees was denied, with the original alimony amount maintained.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesSpecial Referee ReportPublic ChargeMental IllnessHomelessnessInflation
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 445 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