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. 909 S.W.2d 874
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 1995

Rogers v. Bradley

This legal opinion concerns a motion to recuse several Texas Supreme Court justices due to concerns about their impartiality. The allegations stem from a 1992 political action committee (TEX-PAC) video, 'Court Wars III,' which supported certain judicial candidates and linked their election to the outcome of a medical malpractice case involving Dr. Brian Bernard Bradley. Justice Gammage recused himself, arguing that the video created a reasonable question of impartiality. However, Justice Enoch, writing the response, disagreed with Gammage's reasoning, asserting that aggressive campaigning by third parties, without questionable conduct by the judges themselves, does not warrant recusal. The court ultimately denied the motion to recuse the other four justices.

Judicial RecusalJudicial ImpartialityPolitical Action CommitteesJudicial ElectionsCampaign FinanceMedical MalpracticeTexas Supreme CourtAppearance of BiasEthical ConductJudicial Ethics
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jungels v. Buffalo

The court addressed a motion filed for the reargument of an earlier motion for leave to appeal. This request for reargument was subsequently denied by the court. It was specifically noted in the decision that Judge Rivera did not participate in the deliberation or ruling on this particular matter, indicating a recusal or non-involvement in the proceedings. The original motion for leave to appeal was referenced as 20 NY3d 915 (2012).

Motion for reargumentLeave to appealMotion practiceProcedural denialJudicial recusalAppellate procedureCourt of AppealsNew York law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flynn-Stallmer v. Stallmer

Petitioner Susannah Flynn-Stallmer appealed three orders: two from Family Court concerning child custody awarded to respondent Timothy J. Stallmer, and one from Supreme Court denying her motion to vacate the Family Court order on grounds of judicial recusal. Family Court awarded custody to the father, Timothy J. Stallmer, finding it in the children's best interest after weighing various factors including the parents' stability, work records, and the father's supportive extended family, while also considering the mother's inconsistencies and extramarital relationship. The appeals court affirmed Family Court's custody decision, finding it supported by the record and that the court did not improperly rely on matters outside the record or err in denying the mother's motion to present additional testimony. Finally, the Supreme Court's denial of the mother's application to set aside the custody order due to alleged judicial disqualification was affirmed, as the court found no familial relationship between the Family Court Judge and the respondent that would mandate recusal under Judiciary Law § 14, and the Judge's disclosure of a tenuous past tie did not reflect bias.

Child CustodyJudicial RecusalFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewDiscretionCredibilityParental StabilityFamily Court Act Article 6CPLR 4404(b)
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kathryn A. Duke v. Harold W. Duke, III

Harold W. Duke, III (Father) filed a petition seeking recusal of the trial judge in a post-divorce action, citing the judge's former law partner briefly representing Kathryn A. Duke (Mother) and the judge's prior representation of Father's paramour. The trial court denied the recusal motion. Father then filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B. The appellate court reviewed the petition de novo and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found no evidence that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned, noting that adverse rulings alone are not sufficient for recusal and that the alleged prior associations were too limited or distant in time to warrant disqualification.

Recusal MotionJudicial ImpartialityConflict of InterestPost-Divorce ActionAppellate ReviewDe Novo StandardTennessee Supreme Court Rule 10BJudicial Conduct RulesWaiver of AppealTimeliness of Motion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2009

Beach v. Healthways, Inc.

This order addresses a motion to intervene by the Central Laborers’ Pension Fund (CLPF) and the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin denied the defendants' motion to stay, reasoning that despite potential unnecessary discovery, the existing discovery timelines did not permit bifurcation or phasing of discovery. The court granted CLPF’s motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, finding it met all requirements under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Key factors for intervention included timeliness, a substantial economic interest in the litigation, the potential impairment of CLPF's interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of representation by existing individual plaintiffs for a class of institutional investors. The order also noted that parties resolved proposed modifications to the discovery plan.

Securities LitigationClass ActionMotion to InterveneMotion to Stay DiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Private Securities Litigation Reform ActInstitutional InvestorPension FundAdequacy of RepresentationTimeliness of Motion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. CPL article 440 motion
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

People v. G.M.

Defendant G.M. moved to vacate six convictions—two for prostitution, two for criminal trespass, and two for drug possession—which occurred between September 1997 and January 1998. G.M. contended she was a victim of human trafficking and severe domestic abuse by her husband, D.S., who forced her into illegal activities under threat of violence. The New York State Legislature amended Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in August 2010, allowing sex trafficking victims to vacate prostitution-related convictions. The Queens County District Attorney's Office consented to G.M.'s motion for all six convictions, citing her truthful affidavit and the unique circumstances. On April 1, 2011, the court granted the motion, vacating all judgments of conviction and dismissing the accusatory instruments, recognizing G.M.'s status as a trafficking victim, which was also recognized by a federal agency that granted her a 'T Visa'.

Human TraffickingSex TraffickingVacatur of ConvictionsCriminal Procedure Law § 440.10Prostitution OffensesCriminal TrespassDrug PossessionDomestic ViolenceCoercionAbuse
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 13,419 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