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

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
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. ADJ9976213 ADJ9977047
Regular
Jun 01, 2016

## MATTHEW SMITH, vs. ## ACTION ROOFING; SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES,

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought to delay his trial due to pending criminal charges for fraud. The applicant argued that participating in the workers' compensation proceedings would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, causing prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition for removal, finding that the defendant's interest in expeditiously resolving the case and continuing benefit payments outweighed the applicant's Fifth Amendment concerns. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that stays of civil proceedings due to parallel criminal cases are discretionary and not automatically granted.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationWorkers' Compensation FraudPetition to DismissSuspension of BenefitsRestitutionDepositionCrime of Moral TurpitudeDeclaration of Readiness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2001

Daniel v. Safir

Plaintiff Elridge Daniel, Jr., proceeding pro se, initiated a civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations stemming from his 1995 arrest and criminal harassment prosecution. The action named several defendants, including judicial officers, private attorneys, a law firm, and corporations. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold recommended dismissing claims against all defendants for reasons such as judicial immunity for judges and law clerks, lack of state action for private entities, and inadmissibility of criminal statutes as private rights of action. District Judge Nina Gershon adopted this report entirely, granting motions to dismiss all federal claims against most defendants with prejudice, and state law claims against Robert Friedman without prejudice. All motions for sanctions by both parties were also denied.

Civil RightsPro Se LitigantMotion to DismissJudicial ImmunityState Action DoctrineEleventh AmendmentConspiracy ClaimsPrivate ActorsSupplemental JurisdictionRule 11 Sanctions
References
55
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herald Co. v. Burke

Petitioner, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, sought to vacate and prohibit enforcement of oral orders made by Hon. William J. Burke, Onondaga County Court Judge, on May 24, June 29, and July 27, 1999, concerning the criminal case People v Cahill. The petitioner specifically sought access to transcripts of these 'proceedings' and a declaration of a right not to be excluded from further proceedings. The court reviewed the transcripts and concluded that the petitioner should be granted partial access to the transcripts. The court declined to declare a blanket right against exclusion, stating that closure depends on the proceeding's nature and potential prejudice to the defendant. The decision grants access to specific portions of the May 24 and June 29 transcripts, deeming other parts as informal discussions not historically open, and grants access to the entire July 27 transcript.

CPLR Article 78Public Access to RecordsCourtroom ClosureTranscript AccessPretrial ProceedingsCriminal ProcedureFair Trial RightsFirst AmendmentSixth AmendmentMedia Rights
References
14
Case No. M2016-01673-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2017

Tut Mayal Tut v. State of Tennessee

Petitioner Tut Mayal Tut appealed the denial of post-conviction relief for his guilty-pleaded convictions of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of especially aggravated robbery, and four counts of aggravated rape. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during both his juvenile court transfer hearing and the criminal court plea proceedings. The offenses occurred when Tut was fifteen, involving the brutalization of two victims. The juvenile court transferred his case to criminal court, where he accepted a plea agreement for a 30-year sentence. The post-conviction court denied his petition, concluding he failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice by his counsel regarding trial strategy, bond issues, or the understanding of his sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselPost-Conviction ReliefJuvenile Transfer HearingGuilty PleaEspecially Aggravated KidnappingEspecially Aggravated RobberyAggravated RapeCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewStrickland v. Washington Test
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Morel

This case involves a criminal prosecution for contempt of court, based on the defendant allegedly violating a Supreme Court order of protection, running concurrently with a civil child neglect proceeding in Family Court where the defendant also allegedly violated an interim order of protection. The defendant moved to renew and reargue a prior decision dated June 15, 2012, which had denied dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. Upon reargument, the court reversed its original ruling, finding that the criminal prosecution is barred by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles. Citing Breed v Jones, the court determined that jeopardy attached when the Family Court began to hear evidence in the combined fact-finding hearing under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, especially since the defendant faced potential punitive consequences, including incarceration, in the civil proceeding. Therefore, since the factual allegations in both the criminal and civil cases are identical in part, and the defendant faces a punitive sanction in Family Court, the criminal contempt proceeding is dismissed.

Criminal ContemptDouble JeopardyFamily Court Act Article 10Orders of ProtectionChild Neglect ProceedingsFederal Constitutional LawMotion to ReargueMotion to RenewPunitive SanctionsCivil vs. Criminal Proceedings
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. State

This is an appeal from jury convictions for two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity, specifically bribery and aggravated theft. The Appellant, Albert Rodriguez, owner of Lamco, was found guilty of orchestrating a kickback scheme involving fraudulent invoices with the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) and bribing EPISD employees. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing numerous legal issues raised by Rodriguez, including the sufficiency of accomplice witness testimony, the denial of severance for the criminal counts, issues with subpoenas, indictment defects, jury charge instructions, and the admissibility of evidence summaries. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.

Criminal appealOrganized crimeBriberyAggravated theftFraudKickbacksAccomplice testimonySufficiency of evidenceJury chargeTrial procedure
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 12,700 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