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

People v. Marian

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's stalking statute. The defendant was charged with stalking her former girlfriend by sending numerous messages, including to a work email address, and appearing unannounced at various locations. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), ruling that a person's work email address is not considered a "place of employment or business" as defined by the statute. Additionally, the court found other pleading defects for this specific count. However, the motion to dismiss the remaining charges, including falsely reporting an incident and stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (2), was denied as these counts were deemed facially sufficient.

StalkingEmail StalkingPenal LawFacial SufficiencyStatutory InterpretationPlace of EmploymentCriminal Procedure LawMisdemeanorFormer GirlfriendHarassment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Welte

The defendant was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree for allegedly violating a 'no contact' order of protection. The defendant reportedly accessed the complainant's Facebook 'Friend List' and contacted friends and family, accusing the complainant, Maureen Perry, of denying him access to their children. The court examined whether these communications constituted a violation of the order or stalking. Citing ambiguity in the order and the lack of specific allegations for elements of stalking, the court found the accusatory instruments facially insufficient. Consequently, the charges were dismissed.

Criminal ContemptStalkingOrder of ProtectionFacebookSocial MediaIndirect ContactFacial InsufficiencyPenal LawDue ProcessAmbiguity
References
7
Case No. 2015-1796 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

People v. Rivas (Mayra)

This case concerns an appeal by Mayra Rivas from her convictions for stalking in the fourth degree and harassment in the first degree. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the facial sufficiency of the superseding accusatory instrument and the weight of the trial evidence. The court reversed and dismissed the conviction for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (3), finding the accusatory instrument facially insufficient as it lacked objective facts to establish a reasonable fear of employment loss. However, the convictions for stalking under Penal Law § 120.45 (1) and harassment in the first degree were affirmed, as the court determined that the extensive allegations supported a finding of a course of conduct intended to cause reasonable fear for personal safety, beyond mere protected speech.

StalkingHarassmentCriminal LawAppellate ReviewFacial InsufficiencySufficiency of EvidencePenal LawCriminal Procedure LawFirst AmendmentFree Speech
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marhone v. LaValley

An inmate, referred to as the petitioner, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility. The petitioner had filed a grievance and sent an inflammatory letter to a correction officer, leading to charges of stalking and harassment. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, the petitioner was found guilty. Upon judicial review, the court annulled the finding of guilt for stalking but upheld the harassment charge, citing the misbehavior report, the letter, and the petitioner's admission as substantial evidence. The court rejected the petitioner's defenses of retaliation and First Amendment protection.

Prison disciplinaryStalkingHarassmentCPLR Article 78 proceedingAdministrative appealFirst AmendmentInmate grievanceCorrectional facility rulesSubstantial evidenceCredibility issue
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bilus

The defendant, Mitchell J. Bilus, faced charges for obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree following incidents at the Woodmere Post Office. He filed a motion to dismiss the informations due to facial insufficiency. The court granted the motion, dismissing both charges. It found that a federal postal worker does not qualify as a 'public servant' under the Penal Law for the obstruction charge, and the allegations failed to show an impairment of state governmental function. For the stalking charge, the court ruled that two incidents six months apart did not constitute a 'course of conduct' and the complainant's fear for employment was not reasonably established by the allegations.

Criminal LawObstructing Governmental AdministrationStalkingPenal LawFacial InsufficiencyMotion to DismissPublic Servant DefinitionCourse of ConductNew YorkDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webb v. Schlagal

Buddy Wayne Webb appealed a lifetime protective order granted to his ex-wife, Lori Beth Sehlagal, and her minor daughter in Midland County, Texas. The order was based on allegations of stalking, stemming from Webb's delusional behavior, including accusations of Schlagal's involvement in a prostitution ring, his mother's death, and a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Webb argued legal and factual insufficiency of evidence, and violations of his First and Second Amendment rights. The appellate court affirmed the protective order, finding sufficient evidence of stalking and that the order did not unconstitutionally infringe upon his rights, applying intermediate scrutiny due to his dangerous conduct.

StalkingProtective OrderFirst Amendment ChallengeSecond Amendment ChallengeConstitutional LawSufficiency of EvidenceDelusional BehaviorDomestic ViolenceFirearm RightsAppellate Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Co. of North America v. Grider

David C. Grider, a subcontractor, sued Western Company of North America, another subcontractor, for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by a high-pressure hose during a gas well flushing operation. The injury occurred because Western Company's employees failed to attach a rigid stalk to the hose, a violation of company procedure. A jury found Western Company negligent, awarding Grider damages. Western Company appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded testimony where a 'company man' (Richard Phinney, agent of the well owner) stated the stalk was unnecessary, which was crucial for their 'borrowed servant' defense and to explain their employees' conduct. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the excluded testimony was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the employees' actions, not for the truth of the statement, and its exclusion constituted reversible error.

NegligencePersonal InjurySubcontractor LiabilityHearsay ExceptionEvidence ExclusionBorrowed Servant DoctrineReversible ErrorTexas LawGas Well OperationWorkplace Safety
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. E2024-01171-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC. v. MICHAEL HUTTON

This case concerns an appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, where Goodwill Industries of Tenneva Area, Inc., and its CEO, Morris Baker (Appellees), obtained an injunction and temporary restraining order against former employee Michael Hutton (Appellant) under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act (TVWA). The appellees alleged Hutton engaged in unlawful violence, specifically stalking, through persistent Facebook posts after his termination and a ban from Goodwill premises. The Trial Court granted the injunction, found Hutton in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's judgment, finding that the majority of Hutton's Facebook posts could not reasonably be construed as 'at the workplace' as required by the TVWA. The Court concluded that only one instance of harassment occurred at the workplace, which was insufficient to establish the 'pattern of conduct' necessary for stalking under the statute. Consequently, the findings of contempt and the awards of attorney's fees were also reversed.

Workplace Violence ActInjunctionStalkingSocial Media HarassmentContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFirst AmendmentEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. 03-22-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2023

Jonathan Timothy Noyes v. the State of Texas for the Protection of Samantha Jo Voges

Jonathan Timothy Noyes appeals a lifetime protective order issued against him for the protection of his ex-girlfriend, Samantha Jo Voges. Noyes challenged the order on five grounds, asserting the district court failed to make required fact findings, that the evidence was insufficient, that his communication was constitutionally protected speech, that the underlying harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague, and that the court abused its discretion by excluding evidence. The State filed an application for a protective order after Voges reported thousands of threatening text messages, calls from blocked and spoofed numbers, and social media harassment from Noyes following their breakup. Voges testified about Noyes's controlling behavior, physical altercations, and fear for her safety due to threats to ruin her life, disclose private information, and access her accounts. A detective's investigation confirmed Noyes sent over 1,500 messages, used multiple numbers and emails, installed a tracking device on Voges's car, and attempted to access her bank account, leading to his arrest for stalking. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe Voges was a victim of stalking, thus upholding the protective order.

StalkingProtective OrderHarassmentElectronic CommunicationDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessFirearm Prohibition
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 21 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