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

Crane v. Napolitano

The case involves a challenge by ICE Agent Plaintiffs and the State of Mississippi against directives issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically the Morton Memorandum and the Napolitano Directive, which concern prosecutorial discretion in immigration enforcement and deferred action for certain undocumented immigrants (DACA). Plaintiffs argued that these directives compel them to violate federal statutes and their oaths of office, and impose fiscal costs on the state. The Court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and improper venue. The Court granted the motion to dismiss for the State of Mississippi due to speculative fiscal injury and for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to employment authorization due to lack of personal harm. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss for the ICE Agent Plaintiffs' challenge to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, finding they had standing due to the threat of adverse employment action for non-compliance. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

Immigration LawProsecutorial DiscretionDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)Standing (Law)Motion to DismissFederal Court JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)Employment Authorization
References
46
Case No. 01-07-00584-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

DEPT. FAMILY, PROT. SERV. v. Dickensheets

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, challenging the constitutionality of Family Code section 263.401. DFPS contended that the statute's deadline for dismissing termination suits violated the Separation of Powers Clause by unduly interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the dismissal order was a final and appealable order. The court further ruled that section 263.401 is constitutional, distinguishing it from the unconstitutional Speedy Trial Act, because it allows for extensions, requires consideration of the child's best interest, and dismissals are without prejudice, thus not unduly interfering with DFPS's prosecutorial function. The statute's purpose is to expedite resolutions in child custody cases and provide stability for children.

Family LawChild Protective ServicesParental Rights TerminationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersAccelerated AppealStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeProsecutorial DiscretionJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. E2011-01817-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

State of Tenessee v. Danielle White

The Defendant, Danielle White, appealed her convictions for two counts of aggravated assault. She contended that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel, allowing her to represent herself, failing to recuse the judge, unconstitutional grand jury selection, improper jury selection, denying her motion to suppress a rifle, and prosecutorial misconduct. The appellate court found that the Defendant was not entitled to appointed counsel due to her refusal to complete an affidavit of indigency and that she waived her right to counsel by insisting on proceeding pro se. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the judge's refusal to recuse. Issues regarding grand jury and jury selection were either waived or found to be harmless error. The court determined that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the rifle, but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutorial misconduct claim was waived. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.

aggravated assaultself-representationright to counselindigencyjudicial recusalgrand jury selectionjury selection processmotion to suppresswarrantless searchexigent circumstances
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. E2013-00260-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Jessica Kennedy

The Defendant, Jessica Kennedy, was convicted of facilitation of felony murder, aggravated robbery, burning personal property, and abuse of a corpse. She appealed the judgments, raising ten issues including sufficiency of evidence, denial of motions to suppress and for mistrial, alleged trial court errors regarding witness testimony, and sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed all judgments of the trial court, finding the evidence sufficient to support her convictions and that her confession was voluntary. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial or limiting expert testimony, and no prosecutorial misconduct.

Facilitation of Felony MurderAggravated RobberyAbuse of a CorpseBurning Personal PropertySufficiency of EvidenceMotion to Suppress ConfessionInvoluntary StatementCoercion by ConfinementDiscovery Rule 16 ViolationBrady Violation
References
72
Case No. W2006-00424-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Tyrone Chalmers v. State of Tennessee

Tyrone Chalmers appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. In 1997, Chalmers was convicted of first-degree felony murder and especially aggravated robbery, receiving a death sentence. His petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed that judgment. The appellate court found no deficient performance or prejudice by trial counsel and rejected constitutional arguments regarding the death penalty, including claims about appellate review, prosecutorial discretion, lethal injection, international law, and indictment flaws.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselPost-Conviction ReliefFelony MurderAggravated RobberyDeath PenaltyCapital CaseConstitutional LawDue ProcessEighth AmendmentSentencing
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dupree

The defendant was arrested after being observed with a loaded handgun in Brooklyn, leading to a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon. Subsequently, items found on him linked him to a robbery of Lee Leather Shops, resulting in a separate indictment for robbery. During the robbery trial, the court permitted the gun's admission as evidence of identity but restricted testimony about its loaded state or the defendant's prior conviction. The appellate court affirmed this ruling, finding it a proper exercise of discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudice. Additionally, the court found that any prosecutorial misconduct during summation regarding race was adequately remedied by the trial judge's immediate instructions to the jury. The defendant's remaining arguments were found to be without merit.

Criminal Possession of WeaponRobberyAdmissibility of EvidenceProbative ValuePrejudiceMistaken IdentityProsecutorial MisconductRacial PrejudiceLimiting InstructionsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. E2000-00664-SC-R11-CV; M1999-01130-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2001

City of Chattanooga v. Kevin Davis

This consolidated case addresses whether Article VI, section 14 of the Tennessee Constitution, which limits fines to fifty dollars unless assessed by a jury, applies to municipal ordinance violations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the clause applies when the monetary assessment is punitive in purpose or effect, overturning previous conflicting interpretations. The Court affirmed the reduction of fines to fifty dollars in both City of Chattanooga v. Davis and Barrett v. Metropolitan Government, as the municipal courts lacked the authority to empanel a jury for higher punitive assessments. Additionally, the Court addressed constitutional challenges to specific Tennessee Code Annotated sections and the District Attorney General's authority, largely affirming the appellate court's rulings while noting potential infringements on prosecutorial discretion.

Constitutional LawFines ClauseMunicipal Ordinance ViolationsPunitive vs Remedial SanctionsJury Trial RightsArticle VI, Section 14 (Tennessee Constitution)Article XI, Section 8 (Tennessee Constitution)Article VI, Section 5 (Tennessee Constitution)Separation of PowersDistrict Attorney Authority
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 2,230 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