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

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 The petitioner's administrative appeal was superseded by an unannounced "Full Board Case Review" (FBCR) by the Board of Parole, which affirmed the revocation without providing the petitioner notice or an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. 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. 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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
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. ADJ7682048 MF ADJ7682067
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

EDGAR DIAZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION PAROLE

This case concerns an applicant who claimed industrial injuries as a parole officer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award of total permanent disability and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board found that the vocational expert's opinion supporting total disability lacked substantial evidence due to an incomplete employment history and contradictions with other evidence. Furthermore, the Board determined that existing medical opinions from Agreed Medical Examiners provided a basis for apportionment of permanent disability to non-industrial factors, which the trial judge had improperly disregarded.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceVocational ExpertMedical EvidenceContinuous TraumaSpecific InjuryBody PartsPreexisting FactorsNonindustrial Factors
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Local 50, Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. American Bakeries Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County's judgment to vacate an arbitration award was unanimously reversed. The appellate court ruled that the arbitrator's decision, which found a "transfer of operations" rather than a "plant closing" for severance pay under a collective bargaining agreement, was not irrational. The court affirmed the arbitrator's role in contract interpretation and the admission of parol evidence, stating arbitrators are not bound by substantive law or rules of evidence, nor does the parol evidence rule apply to subsequent agreements or modifications.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeverance PayContract InterpretationParol Evidence RuleArbitrator AuthorityAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalPetition DismissalAward Confirmation
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,121 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