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

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. E2019-01864-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2021

State of Tennesse v. Ronnie Lucas Wilson

The defendant, Ronnie Lucas Wilson, was convicted of multiple offenses, including felon in possession of a firearm and attempted first-degree murder, stemming from a high-speed chase and shooting incident involving a police officer. The jury also found that the offenses qualified as Criminal Gang Offenses due to his affiliation with the Aryan Nation gang, leading to enhanced sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed his convictions but vacated the jury's findings regarding the Criminal Gang Offenses Statute, citing insufficient evidence to establish a direct nexus between his actions and the gang's benefit. Consequently, the case was remanded for resentencing related to the attempted first-degree murder and firearm possession convictions, and judgments were modified to remove the gang offense designation. The effective fifty-eight-year sentence was upheld due to the defendant's extensive criminal history and the severity of the offenses, with individual sentences adjusted for the removed enhancement.

Criminal Gang OffensesFelon in Possession of FirearmAttempted First Degree MurderPolice Officer ShootingHigh-Speed ChaseEvading ArrestFalse ReportCriminal Gang EnhancementSentencing AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis

Justice Gammage concurs with parts I, II, III-A, most of III-B, and IV of the majority opinion, acknowledging the need for Republic to object to a special master's report, the applicability of the 'offensive use' exception to attorney-client privilege, and the scope of party communications privilege. However, he dissents from the majority's imposition of stricter factors for offensive-use waiver compared to federal standards. He strongly disagrees with the majority's interpretation of a Declaratory Judgment Act counterclaim as not seeking 'affirmative relief,' arguing that such actions can indeed constitute 'offensive use' under the *Ginsberg* doctrine, particularly when used to preempt liability. Gammage concludes that the attorney-client privilege should be waived for certain documents based on offensive use and would have denied the petition for writ of mandamus in its entirety. Justice Doggett joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

Attorney-client privilegeDeclaratory Judgment ActOffensive use doctrineWaiver of privilegeWrit of mandamusConcurring opinionDissenting opinionTexas lawProcedural lawAppellate review
References
16
Case No. S7 91 Cr. 451
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1993

United States v. Marquez

This Memorandum Opinion and Order details the findings for the sentencing of defendant Flora Marquez following a Fatico hearing. Marquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. The hearing addressed disputes regarding the quantity of narcotics involved, her role in the offense, and claims of diminished capacity. The Court determined a Base Offense Level of 32, denied adjustments for her role or diminished capacity, and allowed only a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Consequently, Marquez's Total Offense Level was set at 30, with a Criminal History Category of I, leading to a sentencing guideline range of 97-121 months.

Criminal LawSentencing GuidelinesDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionCocaine DistributionFatico HearingRelevant ConductBase Offense LevelDiminished CapacityAcceptance of Responsibility
References
21
Case No. 96-CR-2659; 96-CR-2660
Regular Panel Decision

State v. McFall

This case addresses whether Texas Penal Code Section 32.03, an aggregation provision, can be used to prosecute individuals for fraudulently receiving workers' compensation benefits after the primary statute, Section 32.51, was repealed. John P. McFall was indicted under Section 32.51 for conduct occurring both before and after its repeal. The State argued that Section 32.03 allowed aggregation of incidents as a continuing course of conduct, making the pre-repeal conduct an 'element' that permitted prosecution under the old law. The court held that Section 32.03 is an aggregation provision for determining the grade of an offense, not a standalone offense, and therefore cannot be used to prosecute conduct that ceased to be an offense after the repeal of Section 32.51. Consequently, the trial court's decision to quash the indictments was affirmed, and the State's appeal was overruled.

Workers' Compensation FraudStatutory InterpretationRepealed StatuteAggregation ProvisionIndictmentMotion to QuashTexas Penal CodeContinuing Course of ConductElements of OffenseAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05850
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

People v. Flanigan

Defendant Razeah S. Flanigan appealed convictions for assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, stemming from an incident where he fired a flare gun, injuring the victim's arm. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the weight of the evidence for the assault conviction, concluding that the victim suffered a serious physical injury due to disfigurement and protracted impairment. The court affirmed the assault conviction but found that reckless endangerment in the second degree was an erroneous lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, though harmless as it was a proper lesser included offense of another count. Ultimately, the court determined that reckless endangerment in the second degree was a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, leading to the dismissal of the reckless endangerment conviction. The judgment was modified to dismiss the conviction on count 3 and affirmed as modified.

Assault Second DegreeReckless EndangermentSerious Physical InjuryLesser Included OffenseFlare Gun InjuryCriminal Weapon PossessionJustification DefenseWeight of Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionConviction Modification
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sessa

Defendants Michael Sessa, Victor Orena, and Pasquale Amato were convicted of racketeering, loansharking, and firearms offenses committed while conducting the affairs and warring over the leadership of the Colombo organized crime family. The court found that these mobsters thrived in and cultivated a complex, pervasive culture of crime, infesting and draining communities and industries in New York City through activities like loansharking and labor union corruption. The presiding judge emphasized that considerations of incapacitation and general deterrence overwhelmingly require harsh sentences, given the defendants' past histories as recidivists and the severe danger they pose to the community. Although the Sentencing Guidelines mandated life imprisonment, the court found them of little assistance in capturing the overall picture of the defendants' extensive criminal lives. Consequently, each defendant was sentenced to life in prison, with additional consecutive terms for firearm offenses, and substantial cumulative fines, with the court noting upward departures from the Guidelines due to the heinous nature of the offenses and the ongoing danger posed by the defendants.

RacketeeringLoansharkingFirearms OffensesOrganized CrimeColombo FamilySentencing MemorandumLife ImprisonmentCriminal EnterpriseGeneral DeterrenceIncapacitation
References
3
Case No. 14-02-00289-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Burton, Kevin v. State

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation where Kevin Burton challenged the trial court's decision. Burton was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and faced revocation for failing to comply with terms, including paying fines and performing community service. The appellant argued insufficient evidence for the violations and improper admission of extraneous offense evidence. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's discretion in admitting evidence during the punishment phase. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations and that the extraneous offense evidence was relevant for assessing punishment.

Probation RevocationSufficiency of EvidenceCommunity Service ViolationFailure to Pay FinesExtraneous OffensesAdmissibility of EvidencePunishment HearingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionControlled Substance Possession
References
15
Case No. 06-08-00024-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Charles Terrell McClure v. State

Charles Terrell McClure appealed his sentence for constructive delivery of methamphetamine, challenging the admission of extraneous offense evidence during the punishment phase. He argued insufficient evidence corroborated his extrajudicial confession and that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court held that extrajudicial confessions of extraneous offenses do not require corroboration in the punishment phase and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence, especially considering McClure had filed an application for community supervision.

Criminal LawExtraneous OffensesPunishment PhaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCorroboration of ConfessionExtrajudicial AdmissionProbative ValueUnfair PrejudiceSentencing
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 339 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