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

Harrison v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles

Mary Ann Harrison sued the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for the wrongful death of her daughter, who was murdered by a parolee, Jerry McFadden. Harrison alleged negligence due to the Board employees' misuse or non-use of the Field Services Procedural Manual, specifically their failure to contact McFadden's employer, which could have revealed his parole violations and prevented the murder. The Board was granted summary judgment on the grounds that the manual was not 'tangible personal property' within the meaning of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, reasoning that the information contained in the manual is an intangible concept, and thus the state's sovereign immunity was not waived under the Act. The court concluded that allowing such a claim would effectively eliminate the tangible property requirement of the Act.

Summary JudgmentTort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityTangible Personal PropertyParole SupervisionWrongful DeathNegligenceProcedural ManualState LiabilityTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 13-05-559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2008

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr., an incarcerated individual, appealed the dismissal of his claims by the trial court. McBride alleged violations of his due process rights by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles during his parole review hearing. The trial court dismissed his claims without prejudice, citing his failure to comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, specifically the requirements for an affidavit of previous filings and a certified trust account statement. McBride filed a motion for a new trial, attempting to cure these defects. However, the appellate court found that his submitted affidavit still did not meet the detailed requirements of the statute, particularly regarding the dates of final orders for previously dismissed frivolous lawsuits. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the dismissal.

Inmate litigationFrivolous lawsuitDue ProcessParole review hearingChapter 14 dismissalTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodePro se litigantAbuse of discretionMotion for new trialAffidavit requirements
References
37
Case No. 2-03-316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2004

Janice Turner Conner v. Jason Laurence Johnson

Janice Turner Conner sued her nephew, Jason Laurence Johnson, asserting a parol gift of land from her mother, Lora Lee Turner, which Lora Lee later deeded to Jason. The jury found no parol gift, and the trial court entered judgment for Jason, including attorney's fees. Janice appealed, arguing the trial court improperly excluded her testimony about the gift and erred in awarding attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals found the Dead Man's Rule did not apply but deemed the exclusion of hearsay testimony harmless due to other admitted evidence. The court reformed the judgment by deleting the attorney's fees award, affirming the judgment as reformed.

Trespass to Try TitleQuiet TitleEasementParol GiftStatute of FraudsDonative IntentDead Man's RuleHearsay ExceptionStatement Against InterestEvidentiary Ruling
References
49
Case No. 03-08-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2008

Henry Chavez v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

Henry Chavez, an inmate appearing pro se, appealed the dismissal of his mandamus suit against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Chavez sought release to mandatory supervision, arguing that the legislative exclusion for aggravated sexual assault convictions violated his constitutional rights. The trial court dismissed his suit as frivolous under chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code. On appeal, Chavez argued due process violations due to lack of notice for the dismissal hearing, denial of a recorded hearing, and refusal to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion as chapter 14 does not mandate these procedural safeguards for inmate claims.

Inmate litigationPro se appealDismissal of suitFrivolous claimsDue process rightsMandamus petitionMandatory supervisionChapter 14 Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of discretion standardNotice of hearing
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00504 [157 AD3d 1176]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2018

Matter of Gainey v. Stanford

Petitioner, Curtis L. Gainey, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board of Parole's determination revoking his parole and imposing a 24-month hold. Gainey, convicted of incest in 2001, was paroled in 2014 and subsequently charged with violating parole conditions for failing to participate in and pay for required sex offender treatment. An Administrative Law Judge and the Board of Parole sustained these charges. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence that Gainey failed to comply with his parole conditions despite having the financial means and opportunities to do so. The court dismissed the petition, also noting that Gainey's challenge to the length of his time assessment became moot upon his re-release to parole supervision.

Parole revocationSex offender treatmentCPLR article 78Substantial evidenceParole violationAdministrative lawMootnessCredibility determinationAppellate reviewIncest conviction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Board of Parole

The petitioner, previously on parole after convictions for sodomy, rape, and robbery, faced parole revocation following allegations of new crimes and numerous parole violations. A hearing officer sustained 19 of 22 violations, leading to parole revocation. The petitioner's administrative appeal was superseded by an unannounced "Full Board Case Review" (FBCR) by the Board of Parole, which affirmed the revocation without providing the petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard, effectively undermining his appeal rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent habeas corpus application. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the FBCR procedure was an unauthorized violation of the petitioner's due process rights and statutory right to appeal, causing irreparable harm. The court also noted significant weaknesses in the identification evidence against the petitioner and strong alibi evidence, suggesting a high probability of reversal on the merits. Consequently, the court granted the petition, discharging the petitioner from custody and restoring him to parole status.

Parole revocationDue process violationHabeas corpus reliefEyewitness identificationAlibi defenseDNA evidencePolygraph evidenceAdministrative appealUnauthorized agency reviewPreponderance of evidence
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07198 [144 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford

Khaliyq Sellers, convicted of first-degree assault, had his parole revoked by the New York State Board of Parole after violating release conditions at a drug treatment center and during detention at Rikers Island. The violations included making verbal threats to "blow up the place" and threatening to kill everyone at Rikers Island, among other non-compliant behaviors. Sellers initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the revocation on grounds of untimeliness and due process violations, which was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court specifically found that verbal threats constituted prohibited behavior under parole rule 8, without requiring physical conduct, and that the final parole revocation hearing was timely held.

Parole RevocationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue Process RightsParole ViolationsVerbal ThreatsTimeliness of HearingAppellate DivisionAssault ConvictionCorrectional Facility Incident
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. New York State Division of Parole

Plaintiff Clemente, a Hispanic female parole officer and union leader, sued the New York State Division of Parole for employment discrimination under Title VII. She alleged race and gender discrimination, retaliation for a prior lawsuit, and a hostile work environment, citing incidents like a special assignment, a derogatory letter targeting union leaders, a unit transfer, and demeaning comments from a human resources director. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for discriminatory motive. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that Clemente failed to demonstrate that the Division's actions were motivated by her race, gender, or previous protected activity, instead concluding that the actions stemmed from her position as a union leader, which is not a protected characteristic under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentUnion LeadershipPrima Facie CaseCausation
References
41
Case No. 07-CV-120 (NGG)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2013

Redd v. New York State Division of Parole

Fedie R. Redd, a former parole officer, sued her employer, the New York State Division of Parole (DOP), and Jose Burgos, for sexual harassment, retaliation, and disparate treatment under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. This court previously granted summary judgment to DOP on all claims, but the Second Circuit remanded the sexual harassment claim. Redd then amended her complaint to add retaliation claims against DOP and aiding and abetting claims against Burgos. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on these new claims. The court found no causal connection between Redd's protected activities and her termination, noting the significant weight of an independent arbitrator's decision that Redd's termination was justified due to false reports and disciplinary history. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, dismissing Redd's retaliation, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL claims with prejudice, with the Title VII sexual harassment claim against DOP proceeding to trial.

RetaliationSexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentArbitrationFalse AccusationDisciplinary ActionTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRL
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 137 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