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
May 17, 1990

Bergin v. Peplowski

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a common driveway. Despite the injunction, defendants continued to obstruct access. Plaintiff moved to hold defendants in contempt, which the Supreme Court granted, imposing a fine and counsel fees. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the contempt finding, concluding that the preliminary injunction's mandate was clear and defendants' disobedience was proven. The court rejected defendants' arguments regarding the injunction's precision, its breadth, and the necessity of a hearing, finding sufficient factual basis in the submitted papers.

Contempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionCommon DrivewayObstructionCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewCourt Order EnforcementProperty RightsJudiciary LawMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bilus

The defendant, Mitchell J. Bilus, faced charges for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree following incidents at the Woodmere Post Office. He filed a motion to dismiss the informations due to facial insufficiency. The court granted the motion, dismissing both charges. It found that a federal postal worker does not qualify as a 'public servant' under the Penal Law for the obstruction charge, and the allegations failed to show an impairment of state governmental function. For the stalking charge, the court ruled that two incidents six months apart did not constitute a 'course of conduct' and the complainant's fear for employment was not reasonably established by the allegations.

Criminal LawObstructing Governmental AdministrationStalkingPenal LawFacial InsufficiencyMotion to DismissPublic Servant DefinitionCourse of ConductNew YorkDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore Savage v. Kopplin

Carl Kopplin sued the San Antonio Traction Company, J. P. Haynes, and the estate of G. Bedell Moore for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by an obstruction negligently placed near a streetcar track. The obstruction, a fence, was erected by Haynes at Moore's request. The trial court found in favor of Kopplin against Moore's executors for $10,000, absolving the Traction Company and Haynes. Moore's executors appealed, arguing Haynes was an independent contractor and they should not be liable. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Moore's estate was liable due to Moore's active participation in creating a public nuisance, irrespective of Haynes' contractor status.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPublic NuisanceIndependent ContractorJoint Tort-FeasorsEmployer LiabilityStreet ObstructionProximate CauseConcurring NegligenceAppeal
References
18
Case No. 92 Cr. 712
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1993

United States v. Wooden

Anthony Wooden, a postal carrier, appealed his conviction for obstructing and retarding mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1701. Magistrate Judge Kathleen A. Roberts had found Wooden guilty after nearly 950 pieces of unsorted, unsequenced, and stale mail were discovered in relay boxes on his route. Wooden admitted to delaying the mail with the intention of delivering it later but argued a lack of specific intent due to being an inefficient employee. District Judge Sweet, presiding over the appeal for the Southern District of New York, affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The court found sufficient evidence that Wooden knowingly and willfully obstructed the mail, rejecting the defense's argument regarding specific intent.

Mail obstructionPostal carrierCriminal appealSufficiency of evidenceSpecific intent18 U.S.C. § 1701Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureWillful misconductDelay of mailPostal Service
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2010

United States v. Batista

Luis Batista, a former NYPD detective, was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice. This opinion and order details the court's reasoning for his sentencing. The court denied Batista's request for a mitigating role reduction, finding his contributions to the narcotics conspiracy substantial and unique. It also applied a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice due to materially false statements made to the court and perjury during trial. Furthermore, a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy was warranted, as it was reasonably foreseeable given Batista's background and the nature of the large-scale operation. Consequently, Batista was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and supervised release.

Sentencing GuidelinesPerjuryObstruction of JusticeFirearm EnhancementNarcotics ConspiracyBank FraudMitigating Role AdjustmentPolice DetectiveWiretap EvidencePresentence Report
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trice v. State

The State of Texas sued John R. Trice and T & H Materials, Ltd. to remove an unapproved bridge over the Brazos River in McLennan County. Trice argued federal permits preempted state authority. The State alleged obstruction, trespass, and nuisance, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The jury found obstruction, awarded damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming McLennan County as proper venue and denying Trice's preemption claims. It also upheld the award of attorney's fees. A motion to hold Trice in contempt for violating a temporary injunction was denied, as the injunction had expired upon the trial court's final judgment.

Bridge constructionNavigable watersSupremacy ClauseState's regulatory authorityFederal preemptionPurprestureTrespassPublic nuisanceInjunctive reliefAttorney's fees
References
29
Case No. AP-77,031
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Davis, Franklin

This document is an appellant's brief in the case of Franklin Davis v. The State of Texas, appealing a capital murder conviction and death sentence from Dallas County. Davis was convicted of the capital murder of Shania Gray, allegedly to obstruct her testimony in a sexual assault case. The brief argues for reversal on multiple grounds, including Batson violations during jury selection, improper denial of motions to quash indictment and suppress evidence, and insufficient evidence to prove the "obstruction" element of capital murder. Additionally, Davis raises numerous constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty scheme and jury instructions related to future dangerousness and mitigating circumstances. He contends his motive for the murder was revenge for Gray's false sexual assault allegations, not an attempt to prevent her testimony.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyJury SelectionBatson ChallengeEvidentiary MotionsSufficiency of EvidenceObstruction of JusticeFuture DangerousnessMitigationConstitutional Law
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anaconda Co., Wire & Cable Division, Inc. v. Local 404 International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO

The plaintiff, an electrical wire and cable manufacturer, sought a preliminary injunction against its former employees and their local union to prevent physical obstruction, threats of violence, and to limit the number of pickets at its Hastings-on-Hudson plant. The plaintiff announced the plant's closure in June 1975 due to economic reasons, leading to the termination of the union contract. Defendants argued the dispute was a labor dispute under New York State Labor Law § 807 and that picketing was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found no labor dispute as the plant was ceasing operations. While affirming the right to peaceful picketing, the court granted a preliminary injunction restraining trespassing, obstruction of ingress/egress, and acts of violence, but denied the request to limit the number of pickets, emphasizing that conduct, not numbers, determines legality.

Preliminary injunctionLabor disputePicketing rightsPlant closureFreedom of speechConstitutional rightsUnlawful actsTemporary injunctionIngress and egressProperty rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Di Nicola v. Crucible Steel, Inc.

Claimant Samuel Di Nicola became disabled from obstructive pulmonary disease, an occupational disease, as a result of his 11-year employment by the self-insured employer, Crucible Steel. He worked in conditions with poor ventilation and significant dust, leading to respiratory complaints that began in 1971. Medical experts, Dr. Enders and Dr. Sipple, diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease aggravated by industrial exposure, while Dr. Miller, initially skeptical, conceded a possible work-related link. The employer appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's finding of occupational disease and continuing disability, arguing it was contrary to case law. The court affirmed the board's decision, finding its classification consistent with prior rulings and supported by substantial medical evidence that the work environment aggravated claimant's pre-existing bronchitis and asthma.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseIndustrial ExposureDust ExposureBronchitisAsthmaWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceDisability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moody v. Hutchison

Plaintiff Wanda Moody, a Knox County Commissioner, requested public records from Defendant Sheriff Timothy Hutchison under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Defendant provided some, but not all, documents and made false representations regarding their existence and availability. Plaintiff sought criminal contempt charges against Defendant for these false statements and obstruction of justice. The Trial Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt for making at least six willfully false statements in a signed response, obstructing court processes, and imposed a $300 fine. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, notice of criminal contempt, and the appropriateness of criminal vs. civil contempt. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence, proper notice, and that criminal contempt was a suitable remedy for preserving the court's authority, and held the Defendant personally responsible for the fine.

Public Records ActCriminal ContemptFalse StatementsObstruction of JusticeKnox County SheriffGovernment TransparencyDocument ProductionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBurden of Proof
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 135 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