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

Morse v. Weingarten

This case involves a securities fraud class action where plaintiffs, shareholders of First Capital Holdings Corp., alleged that defendant Michael Milken violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and committed common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed Milken, through his 'Daisy Chain' scheme, caused First Capital to invest heavily in junk bonds, leading to its collapse and misleading statements about its financial health. Milken moved to dismiss all claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, and to strike portions of the complaint under Rule 12(f). The court granted Milken's motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Morse failed to adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b) due to a lack of 'in connection with' and causation, insufficient knowledge for aider and abettor liability, insufficient control for control person liability, and inadequate pleading of conspiracy. The common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims were also dismissed for similar reasons, and the court granted the motion to strike references to Milken's criminal conviction and income as immaterial.

Securities FraudClass Action LawsuitMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Aiding and AbettingControl Person LiabilityConspiracyCommon Law FraudNegligent Misrepresentation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1960

Battista v. Potofsky

The defendant, an unincorporated association, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which denied its motion to dismiss a complaint for insufficiency, alleging fraud. The appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that the fraud complained of was authorized or ratified by the members of the union, which is an unincorporated association. Leave was granted for the plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint.

FraudUnincorporated AssociationDismissalInsufficiency of PleadingAuthorizationRatificationCivil PracticeAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti

The Tribune Company, plaintiff, filed a RICO action against multiple defendants including Robert A. Purcigliotti, Cascione, Chechanover & Purcigliotti (CCP), Dr. Walter Stingle, three unions, and 585 individual union members. Tribune alleges violations of the RICO Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a scheme to file fraudulent workers’ compensation claims for hearing loss against the New York News, motivated by a past strike. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds, including abstention, failure to plead with particularity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), immunity, failure to state a claim under RICO (pattern, operation/management, causation), failure to state state-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims, unjust enrichment, and collateral estoppel/res judicata. The court denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded its claims and that abstention and immunity were not applicable in most instances. However, the court granted the motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims against the Union and Individual defendants, finding insufficient allegations of enrichment.

RICO ActWorkers' Compensation FraudMail FraudAbstention DoctrinePleading RequirementsWitness ImmunityRacketeering EnterpriseConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentCollateral Estoppel
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Schlesinger

The government sought a preliminary order of forfeiture against Nat Sehlesinger and Goodmark Industries, Inc. for over $21 million, alleging assets were proceeds of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The defendants were convicted following a jury trial in May 2005, based on schemes involving fraudulent insurance claims for fires at their business property and defrauding creditors through shell corporations. The court determined that the Wallabout Street Property, which housed the business, facilitated the money laundering offense. It also ruled that 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) permits criminal forfeiture for mail and wire fraud even without 'special circumstances,' acting as a 'gap filler' where civil forfeiture is authorized. Consequently, the court issued a preliminary order of forfeiture for specific sums related to money laundering, insurance fraud proceeds, and creditor fraud proceeds.

Criminal ForfeitureMail FraudWire FraudMoney LaunderingInsurance FraudCreditor FraudAsset ForfeitureWallabout Street PropertyFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)18 U.S.C. § 982
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1999

Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Services Corp.

Plaintiffs, Lawrence Arduini, Joseph Messina, and the Arduini/Messina Partnership, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit against National Medical Financial Services Corporation (NMFS), Douglas R. Colkitt, and Alan H.L. Carr-Locke, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state law fraud claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the dismissal of the federal securities fraud claims, determining they were time-barred because public SEC disclosures had placed plaintiffs on inquiry notice of potential fraud more than one year before filing. Additionally, the court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation. The court also dismissed claims for conspiracy to defraud and "fraud on the market" under federal law and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Defendant Carr-Locke's claims were also dismissed due to failure of service. The request for leave to replead was denied as futile.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsLoss CausationMarket ManipulationInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 10b-5PSLRASupplemental Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falik v. Parker Duryee Rosoff & Haft

Plaintiff Harold Falik, former CFO of Emerson Radio Corporation, brought this action alleging securities fraud and state law claims against Emerson officers, directors, and its legal counsel. Falik claimed legal malpractice by attorneys Haft and Stein in the Karr litigation due to undisclosed conflicts of interest, leading to a significant personal judgment. He also asserted securities fraud related to his purchase of Emerson stock, where he received restricted shares contrary to promises, resulting in a substantial loss after the company's bankruptcy. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding Falik's federal securities fraud claim time-barred due to a lack of reasonable diligence in discovering the fraud. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudLegal MalpracticeConflict of InterestStatute of LimitationsRule 10b-5Pleading RequirementsRule 9(b)Supplemental JurisdictionEquitable TollingMotion to Dismiss
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 735 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