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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01170 [191 AD3d 1203]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Police Benevolent & Protective Assn., Inc.)

The City of Troy appealed a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration and granted the Troy Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the City's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to fill a vacant captain position within 30 days from a civil service list. The City argued that the CBA provision conflicted with Civil Service Law § 61 (1) and public policy. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the CBA provision did not violate Civil Service Law § 61 or public policy, as the City voluntarily agreed to a time frame for promotion and retained discretion to choose from the top three candidates. The Court also determined that standing and compliance with grievance procedures were matters for the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic PolicyPromotional PracticesMunicipal CorporationPolice DepartmentGrievanceStay ArbitrationCompel Arbitration
References
24
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 07-14-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson

Korey Ferguson, a police officer for the City of Plainview, Texas, was terminated after an alleged incident of excessive force involving citizen Amber Washington. Ferguson contended that the City violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023(a) and (b) by failing to provide him with a copy of Washington's signed complaint before taking disciplinary action. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ferguson, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, based on the belief that noncompliance with the statute mandated this remedy. The City of Plainview is appealing this decision, arguing that reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy for the statutory violation, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Ferguson's reinstatement given his unfitness as an officer, and that the order to reinstate him is against public policy.

Police MisconductExcessive ForceReinstatementDue ProcessStatutory ComplianceTexas Government CodeCivil ServiceAdministrative LawPublic PolicyAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. 03-96-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1997

Milton O'Bryant Leonard Hendon, Jr. Jimmie Cross Joe Ortiz And Marvin Rasco v. City of Midland Richard L. Czech, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Midland Police Department And J. W. Marugg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant, City of Midland Police Department

Several police officers sued their employer, the City of Midland, and supervisors for alleged unlawful employment practices, including retaliation due to their disabilities and prior lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding claims of tortious interference, intentional infliction of economic injury, and requests for back pay for constitutional violations. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment concerning official and derivative sovereign immunity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reinstatement for constitutional violations, and breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine issues of material fact. The court also vacated and dismissed the Texas Labor Code claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Official ImmunitySovereign ImmunityEmployment LawRetaliation ClaimsDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment ReversalTexas Constitutional RightsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference with Contract
References
32
Case No. 08-04-00026-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Ricardo Corrales and Zulema Frias v. Department of Family and Protective Services

The parents, Ricardo Corrales and Zulema Frias, appealed the termination of their parental rights concerning three of their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. They argued against the admission of police reports as hearsay and the court's failure to appoint the maternal grandmother as managing conservator. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the police reports admissible as cumulative evidence and upholding the jury's decision to name the Department as managing conservator. This decision was based on evidence of the parents' ongoing drug abuse, a history of abuse and neglect, and the grandmother's inability to provide a safe and stable environment for the children, despite her desire to care for them. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that appointing the Department was in the children's best interest.

parental rights terminationchild conservatorshipchild neglectsubstance abuseevidentiary ruleshearsaypublic records exceptionbusiness records exceptionlegal sufficiencyjury verdict
References
27
Case No. 02-11-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Jayson Steele v. City of Southlake, Texas, and Wade Goolsby, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police Southlake Department of Public Safety

Jayson Steele, a police sergeant for the City of Southlake, Texas, reported alleged misconduct by his department, including issues with case interference and falsifying workers' compensation claims, to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. He also sent anonymous emails to city officials outlining these concerns and later sent a second email falsely claiming to be a retired officer to divert an internal investigation into the anonymous emails. Steele was subsequently fired. He sued the City of Southlake and Chief Wade Goolsby under the Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment and a plea to the jurisdiction to the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the City conclusively proved its affirmative defense that Steele would have been terminated solely due to his untruthfulness and deceptive actions during the internal investigation, regardless of his protected whistleblower reports. The court emphasized the critical importance of truthfulness for police officers.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationTermination of EmploymentPolice MisconductUntruthfulnessDeceptionSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefensePublic EmployeeOfficial Capacity
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,465 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