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

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Ellen

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Open Records Act (TORA) regarding the disclosure of investigative records pertaining to sexual harassment allegations against John Ellen, a former police lieutenant. The Attorney General challenged a trial court's decision that withheld the names and detailed statements of witnesses, citing privacy concerns, while ordering the release of Ellen's affidavit and the police board's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, balancing the public's right to information about government affairs against the privacy rights of individuals involved in intimate and embarrassing sexual harassment investigations. It concluded that disclosing witness identities would discourage future reporting and cooperation, thereby upholding the privacy exemption under TORA.

Texas Open Records ActTORASexual HarassmentPrivacy RightsInvestigative RecordsGovernment TransparencyWitness ProtectionPublic OfficialsEctor CountyAppellate Law
References
11
Case No. ADJ3919401 (POM 0295843)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

LUIS MUNIZ vs. XCESS PAYROLL SERVICES

This order dismisses Xcess Payroll Services' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified, violating Labor Code section 5902. The Board also indicated that even if verified, the petition would have been denied on the merits. The dismissal is based on procedural grounds and the lack of evidence in the record to support the petitioner's claims, particularly regarding a "Verizon issue." The petitioner failed to properly identify themselves in the heading, contributing to the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902WCJ Report and RecommendationOptimum PharmacyVerizon issueLien claimantDismissedAdjudicationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. 05-15-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Estate of David Anthony Toarmina

This document is an 'Agreed Correction of Reporter’s Record' filed by Danyel Moffett, Appellant, and Vincent Toarmina, Appellee. The parties agree to correct the Reporter’s Record by including two exhibits, Def. Ex. 29 and Def. Ex. 30, which are Charles Vincent Toarmina’s Response to Request for Disclosure and Charles Vincent Toarmina’s First Supplemental Response to Request for Disclosure, respectively. These exhibits were admitted at trial but not included in the original record. The parties agree that these documents are true and correct copies and should be made part of the Reporter’s Record for all purposes.

Appellate ProcedureCorrection of RecordExhibitsDiscoveryTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProbate CourtEstate LawDisclosure RequestAppellate Court FilingAgreement of Parties
References
7
Case No. 02-21-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Todd Gallaher v. Denton Media Company, Inc. D/B/A Denton Record Chronicle

Appellant Todd Gallaher, a political consultant, sued Appellee Denton Media Company, Inc. d/b/a Denton Record-Chronicle for defamation, alleging libelous statements in a series of articles. The articles detailed allegations of Gallaher's misconduct during the 2008 primary election, claiming he was "charged," "prosecuted," and "sentenced" for misrepresentation of identity. Gallaher also contended defamation regarding statements that he declined to comment for the articles. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Newspaper. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that some claims were time-barred, statements about charges were protected by the statutory defense of truth for public concern, and statements about declining comment were not defamatory.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentFreedom of PressPublic ConcernStatutory Defense of TruthStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas Election Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. NO. 02-11-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2012

Gregory Earl Reed D/B/A Hit City Records & Tapes v. County of Tarrant, Tarrant County Hospital District, Tarrant County Community College District, City of Forest Hill, and Fort Worth Independent School District

Appellant Gregory Earl Reed d/b/a Hit City Records & Tapes appealed the trial court’s denial of his equitable bill of review. The bill challenged a default judgment for delinquent property taxes, tax lien foreclosure, and a tax-foreclosure sale obtained by Appellees. Reed contended that he and Ronald Reed, the registered agent, were not properly served, and even if served, it was ineffective as Ronald was no longer a partner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that service upon Ronald was effective because the filed deed showed him as a partner, and there was no indication to Appellees that their notice had failed, thus no due process violation.

Equitable Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentDelinquent Property TaxesTax Lien ForeclosureTax Foreclosure SaleService of ProcessDue ProcessPartnership LawAd Valorem TaxesSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 4,936 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