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
Feb 24, 1989

People v. Cuthbertson

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree after a jury trial and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 15 years to life, which was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court, New York County. The defendant claimed self-defense in the shooting death of Samuel Walker, an alleged assailant who had previously attempted to rob the defendant. Witnesses testified that the defendant entered a restaurant armed with a shotgun, ordered others out, and then fired multiple shots at Walker. The court's jury instructions regarding provocation and self-defense were upheld as pertinent and accurate. The court also found that the claim of an erroneous charge on provocation was unpreserved and lacked merit, and the jury's exposure to a reference to an unproduced witness did not warrant a reversal.

Murder Second DegreeSelf-defenseJury TrialProvocationJustificationDuty to RetreatJury ChargeAppellate ReviewCriminal ConvictionShotgun Shooting
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1994

People v. Thomas

The defendant, a striking worker, was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the second degree. The conviction, and a sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years as a second felony offender, was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court, New York County. The People successfully disproved the defendant's justification defense by presenting credible evidence that the defendant threatened and struck the complainant, a temporary worker, without provocation. The court found no reason to disturb the jury's determination on issues of credibility, including whether the complainant had reached for a sledgehammer.

Assault Second DegreeJury TrialJustification DefenseCredibility IssuesStriking WorkerSecond Felony OffenderCriminal ConvictionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheila C. v. Povich

Sheila C., a minor, filed a complaint alleging negligence against the Maury Povich Show and its staff after she was raped by a limousine driver associated with the show. The plaintiff claimed the defendants' negligent acts, including inadequate supervision and instructions to act provocatively, led to her assault. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence and negligent hiring/retention claims, recognizing a duty of care for minors under supervision. However, claims for emotional distress and negligence per se were dismissed, and the slander claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was mostly denied.

Talk Show TortsNegligent SupervisionChild EndangermentEmotional Distress ClaimSlander ClaimNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionMotion to DismissDuty of CareForeseeability
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baxter v. State

GALBREATH, Judge, dissents from the majority's decision affirming a first-degree murder conviction in the Madison County Criminal Court. The case involved a defendant accused of the shotgun slaying of Norris Attaway, driven by jealousy over his estranged wife's alleged affair with the victim. Judge Galbreath argues that the facts do not support a finding of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated murder, contending that the killing occurred in the 'hot blood of passion' due to the defendant's conviction of his wife's infidelity. Citing numerous precedents, the dissent asserts that such strong provocation should mitigate the offense to voluntary manslaughter or at least second-degree murder. The judge concludes that the degree of the offense and the punishment should be reduced from first-degree murder.

JealousyMarital InfidelityProvocationVoluntary ManslaughterSecond-Degree MurderFirst-Degree MurderCriminal LawTennessee LawDissentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandhu v. Sandhu

Justice Weinstein dissents in part and concurs in part regarding a divorce judgment. The memorandum argues that the evidence presented by the plaintiff husband for cruel and inhuman treatment was insufficient to warrant a divorce in his favor, especially considering the 15-year marriage, the wife's financial dependency, and acts of provocation by the husband and his mother. Conversely, the justice finds that the defendant wife presented sufficient evidence of the husband's cruel and inhuman treatment, including physical assaults and verbal abuse, entitling her to a divorce on her counterclaim. The memorandum recommends modifying the judgment to grant the wife's counterclaim for divorce and remitting the matter for alimony proceedings. It concurs with the trial court's decision to award custody of the three minor children to the husband, based on a psychiatric social worker's recommendation and the children's expressed preference, while ensuring liberal visitation rights for the wife.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentAlimonyChild CustodyDomestic Relations LawMarital MisconductProvocationAppellate ReviewSpousal SupportLong-Term Marriage
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. Beedle

Plaintiff Adelaide Sharnee Harris brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against her former employers, the Power Authority of the State of New York, Ralph E. Beedle, and John C. Brons, alleging wrongful termination in violation of her First Amendment rights. Harris was fired after publicly displaying "Values Program" buttons in a provocative manner, which she claimed was a form of protest against the program, deeming it a waste of public money. The court applied the Connick v. Myers test, concluding that Harris's speech, despite her claims, did not touch upon matters of public concern but rather internal employment grievances. Furthermore, the court found the "Values Program" itself, which promoted workplace values like excellence and teamwork, to be a permissible employer initiative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all of Harris's claims.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublic EmploymentWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentCivil Rights42 U.S.C. 1983Public Concern DoctrineEmployer RetaliationWorkplace Conduct
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Mollette

Plaintiff Jermaine Lewis, a 15-year-old inmate at Highland OCFS, sued Eddie Mollette, Michael Gavin, John Bahret, and Nate Lassie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of constitutional rights, excessive force, and failure to intervene. Lewis claims Mollette initiated a physical restraint technique (PRT) without provocation, and Gavin twisted his arm, causing a hairline fracture, while he was already restrained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lewis failed to exhaust administrative remedies and their actions were justified. The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding Lewis made a reasonable attempt to exhaust remedies and that material facts regarding excessive force and failure to intervene are in dispute, requiring a trial. Claims against Bahret and Lassie, and certain constitutional and supervisory liability claims, were dismissed on consent.

Prisoner Litigation Reform ActPLRA ExhaustionExcessive ForceFailure to InterveneQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentYouth InmatePhysical Restraint Technique (PRT)Constitutional RightsEighth Amendment
References
24
Showing 1-7 of 7 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