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
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Christopher Carthew sued Suffolk County and several police entities/officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to train, and due process violations, along with state law claims, following his July 2006 arrest for violating an order of protection against his wife, Beth Carthew. The plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest after he entered a commercial building he claimed was his business, despite knowing his wife, who had an order of protection against him, was present. The court found that Officer Vezzi had probable cause to arrest Carthew, based on his wife's complaint, the confirmed order of protection, and Carthew's admission of entering the building knowing his wife was inside, thus dismissing the federal § 1983 claims. Even if probable cause were lacking, Officer Vezzi was entitled to qualified immunity because officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether probable cause existed. Consequently, the federal claims against Suffolk County (Monell claims) were also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProbable CauseOrder of Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Summary JudgmentMonell ClaimFederal ClaimsState Law Claims
References
86
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. 13-24-00634-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Ex Parte Christopher Riggins v. the State of Texas

Christopher Riggins appealed the denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus, challenging the existence of probable cause for his detention after being arrested for aggravated robbery. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the subsequent return of an indictment against Riggins rendered the probable cause issue moot. During the trial court hearing, Riggins's counsel explicitly clarified that he was seeking full release, not a reduction in bond. The Court of Appeals agreed with the State, concluding that since the indictment established probable cause as a matter of law and bond reduction was not sought, the appeal was moot. Consequently, the State's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

Habeas CorpusPretrial DetentionProbable CauseMootnessCriminal AppealAggravated RobberyIndictmentTexas LawAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2007

State v. Dove

A hearing was held to determine if the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management, presided over by Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J. The respondent argued a lack of proper notice under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e), sought to strike statements from the psychiatric examiner, and requested redaction of hearsay within Dr. Lynch's report. The court dismissed the notice-related arguments as moot after proof of delivery was submitted, but granted the redaction of victim statements from presentence and parole reports, citing unreliable multiple hearsay. The court denied challenges to Dr. Lynch's actuarial test results and rejected the respondent's proposed 'more probable than not' standard for probable cause, instead affirming 'reasonable cause to believe.' Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner established probable cause to believe the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management.

Civil ManagementProbable Cause StandardHearsay EvidenceDue Process RightsMental Hygiene Law Article 10Psychiatric EvaluationActuarial Risk AssessmentBusiness Records ExceptionJurisdictionNotice Requirement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheeks v. City of New York

Plaintiff Tatiana Cheeks sued the City of New York for false arrest and malicious prosecution after she was arrested for the death of her infant daughter, Cha-Nell, who died of malnutrition in 1998. Detective Donald Faust arrested Cheeks based on a medical examiner's autopsy report concluding malnutrition without an internal medical explanation, inferring parental neglect. Cheeks contended she diligently fed her daughter, and her expert proposed a 'failure to thrive' syndrome. A jury initially found no probable cause for the arrest, but the appellate court found that probable cause existed as a matter of law based on the autopsy report and Cheeks's sole caregiver status. Ultimately, the court reversed the jury's judgment for the plaintiff and remanded for a new trial due to the trial court's error in excluding part of the autopsy report (stating 'homicide (parental neglect)') after the plaintiff's counsel 'opened the door' to questioning about medical defects. The dissenting justices argued the issue of probable cause was for the jury and that the exclusion of the 'parental neglect' statement was proper.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionProbable CauseMalnutrition DeathParental NeglectAutopsy ReportMedical Examiner FindingsExpert Witness TestimonyFailure to Thrive SyndromeAppellate Review
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gabriel v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggregated theft of over $200,000, involving a scheme of fraudulently obtained credit cards and false identities. On appeal, he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from warrantless searches of his garbage and private postal box, arguing Fourth Amendment violations. He also contended the search warrant for his residence and vehicles lacked probable cause and disputed the sufficiency of evidence for venue in Fort Bend County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the searches lawful, the warrant supported by probable cause, and venue properly established.

TheftCredit Card FraudFourth AmendmentMotion to SuppressWarrantless SearchGarbage SearchPostal Box SearchProbable CauseSearch WarrantVenue
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of the Extradition of Vargas

The United States Government, on behalf of the Mexican Government, sought the extradition of Luis Castaneda Vargas for an alleged homicide in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker presided over the extradition hearing in the Southern District of Texas. The court found that all requirements for extradition were met, including jurisdiction, the existence of a valid extradition treaty between the U.S. and Mexico, dual criminality of the offense, and probable cause for the homicide charge. Despite Vargas's arguments challenging probable cause and claiming overcharging, the court granted the extradition request, certifying him as extraditable to Mexico.

ExtraditionHomicideMexicoProbable CauseTreatyDual CriminalityEyewitness TestimonyJudicial ReviewInternational LawFifth Circuit
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 6,463 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