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

La Belle v. County of St. Lawrence

This case involves three consolidated actions arising from the temporary removal of two minor children, Randy and Jodi La Belle, by St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services and Massena police officers while their parents, Albert and Joyce La Belle, were on vacation. The parents (Action No. 1) sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The children (Action Nos. 2 and 3) brought claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations. This appeal reviews the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints by the Supreme Court at Special Term. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the parents' entire action, certain civil rights claims against the County of St. Lawrence and the Village of Massena, and all punitive damages claims against municipalities and for State law claims in Action Nos. 2 and 3. The infant plaintiffs were left with causes of action for false arrest, false imprisonment, and section 1983 claims against the Department of Social Services and individual defendants, with punitive damages claims remaining only against individual defendants for the section 1983 causes of action.

Child ProtectionCivil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressGovernment ImmunityPunitive DamagesMunicipal LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2002

Besaw v. St. Lawrence County Ass'n for Retarded Children

Plaintiff Jeannie M. Besaw, a participant in a sheltered workshop program sponsored by defendant St. Lawrence County Association for Retarded Children (ARC), was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident while being transported in an ARC van. She and her mother commenced an action against ARC and the driver, alleging negligence. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had an employment relationship with ARC and her claim was barred by workers' compensation exclusivity. The Supreme Court stayed the action pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the stay, noting that questions of fact regarding employment status and scope are within the Board's primary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Board ruled that plaintiff was not an ARC employee and disallowed her workers' compensation claim, which collaterally estopped defendants from relitigating those issues.

Sheltered Workshop ProgramWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityMotor Vehicle AccidentScope of EmploymentPrimary JurisdictionCollateral EstoppelMental Hygiene LawWorkers' Compensation BoardNegligenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1990

Kathleen G. v. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services

The petitioner appealed an order from the Surrogate’s Court of St. Lawrence County which dismissed her application to vacate the surrender of her infant daughter, Elizabeth, for adoption to the respondent. Elizabeth had previously been in foster care and returned to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently signed a surrender document in December 1988, allegedly after discussions with her caseworker and an adoption worker, and after it was read and explained to her by the adoption worker and acknowledged by the Surrogate. Petitioner later sought to vacate the surrender, alleging she was misled and coerced, particularly concerning visitation rights. The Surrogate's Court dismissed her petition, finding her testimony unbelievable and crediting the respondent's witnesses who testified that the surrender was fully discussed, voluntary, and without conditions on visitation. The appellate court affirmed the decision, deferring to the Surrogate's Court's factual findings regarding witness credibility and the voluntary nature of the surrender. Additionally, the court declined to review the constitutional question raised by the petitioner, as it was not litigated in the Surrogate's Court and the Attorney-General was not provided with notice.

AdoptionChild SurrenderVacate OrderParental RightsCoercionFraudVisitation RightsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReviewWitness Credibility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of St. Lawrence v. Travelers Insurance

George Donnelly, an employee of St. Lawrence County, sustained injuries at work and subsequently sued Mater Dei College and Rockwell International Power Tools Corp. These entities then initiated third-party actions against St. Lawrence County, seeking indemnity or contribution for potential damages. St. Lawrence County, a self-insurer for workers' compensation, attempted to compel its general liability carrier, Travelers Insurance Companies, to defend and indemnify it. Travelers denied coverage, citing a policy exclusion for bodily injury to an employee arising from employment or obligations to indemnify others due to such injury. The Special Term initially ruled the exclusion inapplicable for contribution claims, but the appellate court reversed, concluding that the exclusion covered both full and partial indemnification (contribution) and that Travelers was not obliged to defend or indemnify the county.

Insurance exclusionindemnitycontributiondeclaratory judgmentthird-party actiongeneral liabilityemployee injuryappellate courtpolicy interpretationtort law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of St. Lawrence v. Shah

This case involves appeals from three judgments concerning Medicaid reimbursements for "overburden expenditures" incurred by the County of St. Lawrence prior to 2006. The County sought to annul determinations by the Department of Health (DOH) denying its claims and a declaration that a 2012 legislative amendment (L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, § 61) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had partially granted the County's applications, annulling DOH's determinations and finding the 2012 amendment unconstitutional. This appellate court modified that decision, declaring the 2012 amendment constitutional but establishing a six-month grace period for social services districts to submit their claims. Furthermore, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's order directing DOH to identify, verify, and pay the total unpaid pre-2006 overburden expenditures, emphasizing DOH's mandatory and ministerial obligation.

Medicaid ReimbursementsOverburden ExpendituresConstitutional LawStatutory InterpretationRetroactive LegislationGrace PeriodStatute of LimitationsDue ProcessMandamusSocial Services Districts
References
18
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2013

St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit ex rel. Elizabeth V. v. Chad T.

In March 2013, Elizabeth V initiated a proceeding against respondent for willfully violating a 2010 child support order. A Support Magistrate found a willful violation, which the Family Court confirmed, subsequently sentencing the respondent to 30 days in jail. Respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concluding that no appeal can be made from a consent order, and the challenge to the sentence was moot as respondent had already served his jail time.

Child Support EnforcementWillful ViolationFamily Court AppealConsent OrderMootness DoctrineIncarceration PenaltySt. Lawrence CountyAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brinkerhoff v. County of St. Lawrence

The plaintiff, widow of New York State Trooper David Brinkerhoff, filed a wrongful death action against the St. Lawrence County Probation Department and its employees after Brinkerhoff was fatally shot while apprehending a fugitive. The plaintiff asserted claims under General Obligations Law § 11-106 and General Municipal Law § 205-e. The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that no wrongful death cause of action exists under GOL § 11-106 and that the causal link for GML § 205-e was broken by the fugitive's intervening criminal acts. The court found that GOL § 11-106 does not create a wrongful death cause of action, only a survival claim for pain and suffering. Regarding GML § 205-e, the court determined that the defendants' delay in processing an arrest warrant was not an "indirect cause" of Brinkerhoff's death, as the immediate cause was the fugitive's act of shooting a different trooper, which led to Brinkerhoff's deployment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.

Wrongful DeathPolice Officer InjuryFirefighter's RuleGeneral Obligations Law § 11-106General Municipal Law § 205-eProbation ViolationCausationMotion to DismissIntervening Superseding ActSurvival Claim
References
30
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,208 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