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

Harco Energy, Inc. v. Re-Entry People, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Harco Energy, Inc., Larry D. Cotten, and Prime Western Development, Inc., from a judgment rendered in favor of The Re-Entry People, Inc. The dispute originated from an agreement for Re-Entry to perform oilfield services on the Ruth Hatcher Lease in Hardeman County, Texas, for which Re-Entry was not fully paid. The Re-Entry People, Inc. initially sued Cotten, Harco Land, Inc. (Land), Harco Energy, Inc., and Prime Western Development, Inc. on claims including breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent transfer of assets, alter ego, and negligent misrepresentation. Following a bench trial, judgment was rendered against all defendants. Land did not appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against Larry D. Cotten, individually, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence for breach of contract and fraud. However, the court reversed the judgment as to Harco Energy, Inc. and Prime Western Development, Inc., and rendered judgment that Re-Entry take nothing against them, citing legally insufficient evidence for their liability.

Breach of ContractFraudNegligent MisrepresentationCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoFraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA)Oilfield ServicesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAgency Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of United States

This case centers on an action brought by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), against the United States and various government officials. The plaintiffs alleged pervasive illegal activities by the FBI and other federal agencies, including systematic harassment, infiltration, disruption, and surveillance. The court found that the FBI engaged in unconstitutional disruption activities and surreptitious entries, and improperly used informants to gather private information on lawful political activities. As a result, the SWP and YSA were awarded $264,000 in damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, claims for electronic surveillance damages and damages sought by individual plaintiffs were dismissed, and most requests for broad declaratory and injunctive relief were denied, except for an injunction ordering the segregation and limited dissemination of illegally obtained government documents.

FBI MisconductGovernment SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsCivil Rights LitigationFederal Tort Claims ActInfiltrationDisruption ProgramsSurreptitious EntriesInformants
References
141
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2004

Workers' Compensation Board v. Rizzi

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied the defendant's motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment entered pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26. The defendant contended that the entry of judgment was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2), but the court found this argument to be without merit, clarifying that the judgment entry was a ministerial act. The defendant's claim regarding incorrect award calculation was also dismissed as not properly before the Court. The order was affirmed with costs.

Workers' Compensation LawClerk's JudgmentVacate JudgmentStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewMinisterial ActAward CalculationAffirmed OrderJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Giraldo

The case concerns a defendant indicted for cocaine possession, who moved to suppress evidence found during an apartment search. Police agents gained entry by falsely claiming to be gas company workers investigating a leak, then identified themselves and obtained written consent to search. The court ruled that the entry, achieved through deceptive inducement of fear, was illegal and rendered the initial consent involuntary. Furthermore, the subsequent written consent was not purged of this illegality due to the temporal proximity and absence of intervening circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the motion to suppress the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsentDeceptionMotion to SuppressIllegally Obtained EvidencePublic PolicyGas Leak RuseVoluntariness of ConsentTaint Doctrine
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02936 [149 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2017

People v. Brevard

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment convicting Joseph Brevard of multiple charges including assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree. The court upheld the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress statements, ruling that his right to counsel on unrelated drug charges did not apply as he had absconded after being released on bail. Additionally, the court rejected challenges to the sufficiency and weight of evidence concerning the unlawful entry element of burglary, finding the victim was unauthorized to grant entry for illegal activity and that the defendant entered by ruse. The aggregate sentence of 18 years, as a second felony offender, was also affirmed.

Criminal LawAssaultBurglaryAttempted RobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSuppression MotionRight to CounselUnlawful EntryAppellate ReviewSentence Affirmation
References
6
Case No. 03-23-00459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance v. the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sid Miller, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner

Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) appealed the dismissal of its challenge against the Texas Department of Agriculture's Produce Safety Rules. FARFA argued that these rules imposed additional burdens on small-scale farms, contravening federal regulations and exceeding the Department's statutory authority. The challenged rules concerned definitions of 'egregious condition', 'verification of status' procedures for farm entry, and general 'right of entry' provisions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final judgment, holding that FARFA's challenges were ripe but found the rules procedurally and substantively valid, not authorizing unreasonable searches, and not unconstitutionally vague. The decision upheld the Department's broad delegated powers to administer and enforce produce safety regulations.

Produce Safety RulesAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityConstitutional ChallengeFourth AmendmentVagueness DoctrineFood Safety Modernization ActTexas Department of AgricultureFarm RegulationsDeclaratory Judgment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Harris

This concurring opinion addresses a defendant's appeal challenging the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of his written confession. The defendant contended that his arrest lacked probable cause and that his confession, given after Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed. The court found that ample probable cause existed, citing the victim's prior statements, diary entries, and other incriminating evidence. While a lower court initially suppressed an apartment confession based on a *Payton v New York* violation, this opinion asserts that the police entry was consensual. Furthermore, it concludes that a subsequent written confession was admissible due to the attenuation of any potential taint from the initial arrest, given the time lapse and rereading of Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's contentions were ultimately deemed without merit.

Probable CauseWarrantless ArrestMiranda RightsConfession AdmissibilityPayton v New YorkFourth AmendmentAttenuation DoctrineVoluntary ConsentCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 206 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