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. E1999-02204-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

State v. Treva Dianne Green

The defendant, Treva Dianne Green, appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) in Blount County. She challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the suppression of her statements, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and contended that the jury should have been instructed on reckless driving, also arguing her sentence and fine were excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the DUI conviction and upholding the admissibility of her statements. The court also rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct and the lesser-included offense argument, while modifying the sentencing judgment to reflect a 30% confinement percentage for rehabilitative programs but affirming the imposed fine.

Driving Under Influence (DUI)Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceMotion to SuppressProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSentencing GuidelinesProbationMisdemeanor Conviction
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bacchi v. Senkowski

Salvatore Bacchi, proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1991 conviction for Rape and Sodomy in the First Degree, for which he is serving concurrent prison terms. Bacchi raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including false testimony and inflammatory summation remarks, and an incorrect missing witness jury charge. The Court reviewed the state court proceedings and the petitioner's claims. It determined that most claims were amenable to federal review. However, the Court ultimately found the jury instruction errors were not of federal constitutional dimension and the prosecutorial misconduct did not substantially prejudice the petitioner or render the trial fundamentally unfair. Consequently, the application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied in its entirety, and the petition was dismissed.

Habeas CorpusProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsFair TrialDue ProcessRape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeCriminal Procedure LawExhaustion of RemediesProcedural Bar
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCullough v. Bennett

Petitioner Robert McCullough filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition challenging his New York state conviction for burglary, assault, and weapon possession. He alleged prosecutorial misconduct during the execution of a material witness order and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including the failure to object to a C.P.L. § 710.30 notice. The court denied his motion for a stay, deeming unexhausted claims procedurally defaulted or not cognizable. On the merits, the court found no prosecutorial misconduct and, despite trial counsel's error regarding C.P.L. § 710.30 notice, no constitutional prejudice resulted as the statement was spontaneous and admissible. All other ineffective assistance claims were also rejected. Consequently, the court denied McCullough's petition and dismissed the case.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductProcedural DefaultCPL 710.30Fifth AmendmentSpontaneous StatementMaterial Witness OrderStrickland v. WashingtonEvidentiary Hearing
References
101
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. Docket No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

Dunn v. Sears

Willie Dunn, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his New York State conviction for grand larceny and criminal possession of a forged instrument. Dunn asserted two main grounds for relief: the Trial Court's failure to order a hearing regarding his grand jury appearance and prosecutorial misconduct during summation. The District Court denied the petition. It found the grand jury argument non-cognizable on federal habeas review, citing no federal constitutional right to a grand jury in state prosecutions. For the prosecutorial misconduct claims, some were deemed unpreserved by state procedural rules, and all were found to be meritless, concluding that the prosecutor's remarks were either fair responses to the defense or, if improper, were brief, isolated, and remedied by jury instructions. Furthermore, the court emphasized the overwhelming evidence of Dunn's guilt rendered any errors harmless.

Habeas CorpusDue ProcessProsecutorial MisconductGrand JuryState Court RemediesExhaustion of RemediesProcedural DefaultFair TrialSentencingGrand Larceny
References
97
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

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 995 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