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

Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher

Select Insurance Co. appealed a jury verdict awarding Thomas Earl Boucher workmen's compensation for six and three-fourths years of total incapacity. The defendant contended that the plaintiff suffered only partial disability and requested related issues and instructions, which the trial court refused. The appellate court affirmed this refusal, noting that partial incapacity issues in this context were inferential rebuttal issues, and the requested definition was inadequate. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Belz's psychiatric testimony, based on both personal examination and hearsay, admissible as he was a treating physician. The appellate court concluded that the jury's finding of total incapacity was supported by sufficient evidence, particularly the medical testimony regarding the plaintiff's mental condition following his injury.

Workmen's Compensation AppealTotal IncapacityPartial Incapacity DefenseRule 277 T.R.C.P.Inferential Rebuttal IssuesExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidencePsychiatric EvaluationMental DisabilityEarning Capacity Reduction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Hunt

The defendant, Howard Hunt, an attorney, was indicted for conspiring to intimidate a prospective witness in a narcotics case. After being found guilty by a jury on January 19, 1967, Hunt filed a motion to quash the jury panel, alleging violations of federal statutory schemes for jury selection due to incorrect standards and inadequate sources for prospective jurors. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Graven, held a three-day hearing on the motion. The defendant's challenges primarily focused on alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans and an imbalance in economic attainment and employment representation within the jury panel, specifically concerning Bexar County. The Court denied the motion, finding no evidence of impermissible selective judgment by suggesters, no significant disparity indicating discrimination against Mexican-Americans (especially when considering eligibility factors like age, citizenship, and English language proficiency), and no purposeful discrimination based on economic status or occupation, given the complexities of jury selection in metropolitan areas and the efforts made to ensure a broad cross-section of the community.

Jury SelectionJury PanelRacial DiscriminationJury QualificationsStatutory ComplianceCross-Section of CommunitySan Antonio DivisionBexar CountyFifth CircuitJudicial Conference
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. E2011-01817-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

State of Tenessee v. Danielle White

The Defendant, Danielle White, appealed her convictions for two counts of aggravated assault. She contended that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel, allowing her to represent herself, failing to recuse the judge, unconstitutional grand jury selection, improper jury selection, denying her motion to suppress a rifle, and prosecutorial misconduct. The appellate court found that the Defendant was not entitled to appointed counsel due to her refusal to complete an affidavit of indigency and that she waived her right to counsel by insisting on proceeding pro se. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the judge's refusal to recuse. Issues regarding grand jury and jury selection were either waived or found to be harmless error. The court determined that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the rifle, but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutorial misconduct claim was waived. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.

aggravated assaultself-representationright to counselindigencyjudicial recusalgrand jury selectionjury selection processmotion to suppresswarrantless searchexigent circumstances
References
35
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2005

United States v. DiPietro

During jury selection for a multi-defendant case, defendant Nicola Murdocca, who is undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer, suffered a dramatic medical collapse in the courtroom. This incident, involving audible moaning, foaming at the mouth, and Murdocca yelling about his cancer, caused pandemonium and drew attention from jurors, other defendants, and defense counsel. Paramedics were called, and Murdocca was later discharged from the hospital after being treated for dizziness. The Government requested a new jury selection, citing contamination. The Court granted Murdocca's severance application on medical grounds and dismissed the existing jury pool, deeming them unable to be impartial due to the traumatic events and certain courtroom interactions.

Jury selectionMistrialDefendant illnessSeveranceJury impartialityCourtroom incidentChemotherapyLung cancerDue processJudicial discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkland v. State

The appellant, Kirkland, appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing significant errors related to interim jury service. He contended that jurors selected for his case were biased due to prior service on similar DWI cases before his trial began, requesting they be struck or a mistrial be declared. Additionally, Kirkland challenged the admission of extraneous offenses, specifically concerning unpaid traffic citations, and an allegedly improper question from the prosecutor during cross-examination. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the jury selection issues, and any errors concerning extraneous offenses or the prosecutor's question were cured by proper instructions to the jury.

Interim Jury ServiceDWI ConvictionJury Selection ChallengesJury BiasVoir Dire ExaminationExtraneous OffensesTraffic ViolationsAppellate ProcedureCriminal LawTexas
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,881 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