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. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2003

In re Daquan D.

The case involves the affirmation of Family Court orders that terminated the parental rights of a respondent mother to her four children (Daquan D., Dominique H., Jamel C., and David H.) and committed their custody and guardianship to a petitioner for adoption. The court found permanent neglect, citing the child care agency's diligent efforts to support the parental relationship which were frustrated by the respondent's lack of cooperation, including her failure to sustain participation in programs and her prolonged incarceration. The record supported the finding that the agency made diligent efforts despite the respondent's non-cooperation. Furthermore, the disposition to free the children for adoption was deemed in their best interests, supported by a preponderance of the evidence. This decision was based on the respondent's extensive incarceration and continuous failure to assume parental responsibilities, ultimately offering the children a chance for a stable familial environment.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectBest Interests of ChildFoster CareAdoptionParental CooperationDiligent EffortsIncarcerationFamily LawChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heart Share Human Services

This case involves a petition filed by Heart Share Human Services of New York to terminate the parental rights of Brunilda E., the respondent mother, and Chiedus E., the putative father, to their child, Charle E., alleging permanent neglect and abandonment. Initially, the presumptive father was also a respondent, but the petition against him was withdrawn. The respondent mother conceded permanent neglect. The primary issues before the court were whether Chiedus E. qualified as a "consent father" and if the allegations of permanent neglect or abandonment against him were established. The court found Chiedus E. to be a credible witness, establishing his status as a "consent father" due to his prompt efforts to assert paternity and parental responsibility once aware of the possibility, despite the respondent mother's initial misrepresentations and the petitioning agency's lack of diligent efforts. Consequently, the court found that the petitioning agency failed to prove permanent neglect or abandonment against Chiedus E., leading to the dismissal of the petition against him, while proceedings for a dispositional hearing continued for the respondent mother.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectAbandonmentPutative Father's RightsConsent FatherDiligent EffortsBiological PaternityChild AdoptionFamily LawChild Welfare
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harain Figueroa

The Family Court's order from May 11, 1984, which directed the immediate surrender of a three-year-old foster child, Ida Christina L., to the Commissioner of Social Services, was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that the record was insufficiently developed to justify the child's immediate removal from foster parents, with whom she had lived almost since birth. While acknowledging some questionable responses from the foster parents and unconvincing explanations for their absence from a hearing, the court determined there was no adequate basis to conclude they would not comply with court directions. Furthermore, no other compelling reason for sudden removal was presented by the hearing minutes, which largely consisted of statements based on information and belief or disputed factual claims, necessitating further development. The appellate court refrained from prejudging the outcome of any ongoing or future hearings regarding the child's custodial arrangements.

Foster CareChild WelfareFamily LawChild RemovalAppellate ReviewDue ProcessSocial Services LawNew York CountyJudicial DiscretionHearing Procedures
References
0
Case No. 12-15-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re: Charles Dwayne Lankford and Roberta Gresham

This document is Stephanie Smith's response to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Dwayne Lankford and Roberta Gresham in the Twelfth Court of Appeals, Tyler, Texas. The relators are challenging an order from Judge Joe Lee Register of Angelina County, which denied their pleas to the jurisdiction in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning the child T.D.L. The core issue is whether Stephanie Smith has standing to file suit, based on Texas Family Code §102.003(a)(9), which grants standing to a person having actual care, control, and possession of a child for at least six months. Stephanie Smith argues that she has fulfilled the role of T.D.L.'s primary caretaker for over eight years due to the father's (Charles Lankford) extended absences and the managing conservator's (Roberta Gresham) relinquishment of responsibilities. The response advocates for a broad interpretation of 'actual care, control, and possession,' arguing it does not require exclusive or legal control, but rather a demonstrated de facto parental relationship and the development of a strong parent-child bond with T.D.L.

MandamusParent-Child RelationshipChild CustodyStandingTexas Family CodeActual Care Control PossessionParental RightsAppellate ProcedureFamily LawReal Party in Interest
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Leon RR

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the permanent termination of parental rights for an infant, Leon, Jr., who had been in the physical custody of foster parents since 19 months of age. The dissent argues that the St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services consistently undermined the natural parental relationship, encouraging the foster parents and failing to make diligent efforts to assist the natural parents in maintaining their connection with the child. It criticizes the agency for not carrying out a plan for reintegration and for encouraging the infant's attachment to the foster parents while limiting natural parental visitation. The opinion asserts that the record is inadequate to support the termination of parental rights, highlighting that the natural parents had previously had their other children returned to them and had cooperated with caseworkers. The dissent concludes that the administrative agency's conduct amounted to an abuse of the temporary placement system and votes to reverse the order, seeking dismissal of the petition for permanent termination of parental rights and remittal for consideration of continued custody.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeFoster Care SystemChild WelfareFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildJudicial DissentDepartment of Social ServicesFamily Court ActParent-Child Relationship
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,397 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