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

United States v. Andino

This case involved defendant David Andino, who was charged with conspiring and attempting to commit murder for hire under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a), and related firearm charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Andino was accused of helping the drug gang Sex, Money and Murder (SMM) locate and shoot Domingo Osorio in exchange for money. Following a mistrial, Andino renewed his motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that Andino expected or received payment from SMM, as required by the 'murder for hire' provision. Specifically, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that John Castro, who paid Andino, acted on behalf of the SMM enterprise rather than in a personal capacity. Consequently, the court granted Andino's motion for a judgment of acquittal on all charges due to the lack of evidence for an essential element of the crimes.

Murder for HireRacketeeringJudgment of AcquittalInsufficient EvidenceCriminal ConspiracyAttempted MurderDrug TraffickingGang ActivityAgencyPecuniary Benefit
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Foodmaker, Inc.

Joe and Georgie Smith appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted to Foodmaker, Inc. in their wrongful death claim, following the murder of their son, Timothy, at a Fort Worth Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. The Smiths alleged Foodmaker, as franchisor, was vicariously liable for the franchisee's (MDE, Inc.) negligence in providing inadequate security and negligent hiring of the co-worker who committed the murder. The appellate court applied Texas conflicts of law principles, concluding Texas law governed the tort claim despite a California choice-of-law provision in the franchise agreement. Under Texas law, the court found Foodmaker owed no legal duty to Timothy and did not control the specific security or hiring decisions of its independent contractor franchisee. Even if California law were applied, the court determined Foodmaker's control over the franchisee was insufficient to establish an agency relationship for liability. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment for Foodmaker was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAgency LawFranchisor LiabilityNegligent SecurityNegligent HiringIndependent ContractorConflicts of LawTexas LawCalifornia Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barnes

The appellate court reversed a murder conviction, finding the People failed to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, charged with murder for shooting a co-worker, had raised an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and lacked the capacity to understand his actions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court with directions to enter a directed verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and to issue an examination order.

Insanity defenseMurderSchizophreniaParanoid typeCriminal procedureBurden of proofSanityAppellate reviewRemittalDirected verdict
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03262 [149 AD3d 654]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

Stein v. Douglas Elliman, LLC

This case involves a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention following the murder of Linda Stein by her assistant, Natavia Lowery. Lowery was an employee of Axion, a temp agency, and was placed as an assistant to Stein, an independent contractor for Douglas Elliman, LLC (DE-LLC). The court found that Axion was not liable for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention because it had no prior notice of Lowery's violent propensities. Additionally, Douglas Elliman, LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted as Lowery was not considered a special employee of DE-LLC, and DE-LLC did not exercise supervision or control over her work.

Negligent HiringNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeVicarious LiabilityAssaultMurderTemp AgencyIndependent Contractor
References
3
Case No. 01-06-01121-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2008

Rose Barton, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Martin Dean v. Whataburger, Inc.

This negligence case arises from the aggravated robbery of a Whataburger restaurant and the resulting murder of one of its employees on duty during the robbery. Rose Barton, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son, Christopher Dean, appeals the trial court’s summary judgment entered in favor of Whataburger, Inc. Barton contended that Whataburger was negligent in hiring a manager who conspired in the robbery, failing to provide a safe workplace, and failing to prevent the robbery. The court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the aggravated robbery leading to murder was not foreseeable as a matter of law, and therefore Whataburger had no duty to prevent it.

NegligenceWrongful DeathEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityForeseeability of CrimeIntervening Criminal ActSuperseding CauseAggravated RobberyMurderSummary Judgment
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neumuller v. State

Loretta Neumuller appealed her conviction for capital murder in Crockett County, Texas, following the death of Larry Albers, a wealthy rancher. The prosecution alleged Neumuller conspired with Tyrone Parker to kill Albers for financial gain after Albers had made Neumuller his sole beneficiary. Neumuller challenged several aspects of her trial, including the denial of a venue change due to community prejudice, the amendment of her indictment, the sufficiency of evidence for "murder for hire," the jury's instruction on "remuneration," and the admissibility of her written and videotaped statements, as well as evidence from a search of her home. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decisions regarding venue, evidentiary sufficiency, jury instructions, or the admission of evidence and statements.

Capital MurderCriminal AppealVenue ChangePretrial PublicityMurder for HireRemunerationIndictment AmendmentEvidentiary SufficiencyJury ChargeSuppression of Evidence
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
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. E2005-02406-CCA-R3-DD
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Kiser

Marlon Duane Kiser was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and two counts of first-degree felony murder of Hamilton County Deputy Sheriff Donald Bond. The jury sentenced Kiser to death, citing the murder of a law enforcement officer on duty as an aggravating circumstance. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, but remanded for merging the murder convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, rejecting challenges to Kiser's competency waiver, jury selection, exclusion of evidence, and the constitutionality of Tennessee's lethal injection protocol. The court remanded for entry of a single judgment of conviction for first-degree murder.

First Degree MurderPremeditated MurderFelony MurderDeath PenaltyCapital PunishmentSentencing PhaseMitigating EvidenceCompetency WaiverJury SelectionBatson Challenge
References
142
Showing 1-10 of 1,037 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