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. W2019-00902-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Pamela Moses v. Terry Roland

Pamela Moses sued Terry Roland, a former county commissioner, for defamation and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging Roland made false statements about her during county legislative meetings. Roland asserted immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act and argued his statements were not defamatory. The trial court found Roland liable for defamation regarding statements that Moses should be watched by Homeland Security and that she threatened 'everybody'. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding Roland immune for the Homeland Security statements and concluding that the 'threatened everybody' statement was rhetorical hyperbole, thus not defamatory as a matter of law.

DefamationSlanderGovernmental Tort Liability ActImmunityLegislative PrivilegeGross NegligenceReckless DisregardRhetorical HyperboleAppellate ReversalShelby County
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. 05-19-00728-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Katherine Mitchell v. Dallas Housing Authority

This document is a 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond' filed by an individual named Kyle Fitz. In this statement, Mr. Fitz declares his financial situation to the court, providing details on his monthly income, property value, and monthly expenses. He also addresses whether he is represented by legal aid and if he receives public benefits, stating he does not receive needs-based public benefits and is not represented by legal aid. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate his indigence and inability to cover court-related costs.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyLegal Aid EligibilityIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt DisclosurePublic Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. Dkt. 12
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2015

United States v. Parker

The District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying defendant Ronnie Parker's motions to suppress statements and dismiss his indictment for threatening the President. Parker, hospitalized for schizophrenia and experiencing hallucinations, was interviewed by a Secret Service agent. The court ruled his statements were not made in custody, were voluntary despite his mental state, and were not protected by psychotherapist-patient privilege. It also found no outrageous government misconduct.

Motion to SuppressMotion to Dismiss IndictmentThreats Against PresidentMental HealthMiranda RightsCustodial InterrogationVoluntariness of StatementsPsychotherapist-Patient PrivilegeOutrageous Government MisconductSchizophrenia
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Khan

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a security guard, was terminated after making threatening statements to a client's building manager who had requested his reassignment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that threatening a supervisor and engaging in conduct detrimental to the employer's interests constitute disqualifying misconduct. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination.

Security Guard MisconductThreatening StatementsUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationEmployer Interest DetrimentAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace Conduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,507 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