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. E2010-00860-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. James Beeler

Attorney James Beeler was cited for criminal contempt by the Washington County Criminal Court for allegedly communicating with a co-defendant, James Thomas, who was represented by another attorney, Todd Ross, without explicit permission during a suppression hearing. The trial court based its contempt finding on "willful misbehavior" under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-102(1) and (2). Beeler appealed, arguing that his conduct did not constitute "misbehavior" given the close cooperation between the defense attorneys. The Supreme Court of Tennessee found that while Beeler's actions were intentional, the evidence was insufficient to prove "willful misbehavior" beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the extensive prior collaboration and the nuances of the attorneys' understanding. The Court held that an ethical violation does not automatically equate to criminal contempt unless it demonstrably obstructs justice or impinges on the court's integrity. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and vacated Mr. Beeler's conviction.

Criminal ContemptAttorney ConductLegal EthicsRule of Professional Conduct 4.2Willful MisbehaviorAdministration of JusticeTrial ProcedureAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney Discipline
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cepeda v. Goord

This case involves a petitioner who was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule for refusing to obey a direct order to report for work at the facility's law library. The petitioner argued that it was not one of his regularly-scheduled work days and that the misbehavior report was filed in retaliation for a prior lawsuit. However, the court found substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt, citing the misbehavior report and testimony from the reporting officer and the petitioner himself. The court also stated that the petitioner's arguments regarding his work schedule and retaliation were irrelevant or issues of credibility for the Hearing Officer. The determination was confirmed and the petition dismissed.

Prison Disciplinary RuleRefusal to Obey OrderMisbehavior ReportCorrection OfficerLaw LibrarySubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueRetaliation ClaimInmate MisconductJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Herman & New York City Transit Authority

The petitioners sought to vacate an arbitration award issued by Theodore Kheel, the impartial chairman of the transit industry. Their grievance concerned work pick rules which they claimed violated their seniority status and previous agreements between the Authority and its employees' unions. The arbitrator had denied their grievance, leading the petitioners to allege partiality and misbehavior on his part for consulting the Transport Workers Union. The court, however, found no basis for these charges, noting the informal nature of the arbitration and the arbitrator's prerogative to seek the union's opinion given the potential impact on other employees. Ultimately, the court concluded there was no impartiality or misbehavior and dismissed the petition to vacate the award.

arbitration awardvacate awardpartialitymisbehaviorwork rulesseniority rightsunion agreementgrievanceimpartial chairmanTransit Authority
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coneen v. Selsky

The petitioner sought judicial review of a prison disciplinary finding that he threatened a staff member. Evidence presented at the hearing included a misbehavior report and consistent testimony from two correction officers and a facility maintenance worker, detailing how the petitioner became abusive and threatened to kill an officer. The court found this constituted substantial evidence of guilt. The petitioner's conflicting account was deemed a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. The court upheld the determination, dismissing the petition and finding other contentions meritless or unpreserved.

Prison DisciplineThreatening StaffCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceCredibilityMisbehavior ReportAppellate ReviewCorrectional FacilityNew York LawDue Process
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06022 [153 AD3d 996]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2017

Matter of Williams v. Kirkpatrick

Thomas Williams, an inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a prison disciplinary determination. He was found guilty of creating a disturbance after an incident in the mess hall where he became loud and argumentative when ordered off the serving line. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the determination, finding that the misbehavior report alone provided substantial evidence to support the charge. The Court also noted that the Hearing Officer properly resolved credibility issues and considered the petitioner's testimony, even if not credited. The petition was ultimately dismissed, and the determination was confirmed.

Prison DisciplinaryMisbehavior ReportCreating a DisturbanceSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueCPLR Article 78Clinton Correctional FacilityAppellate ReviewInmate RightsAdministrative Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swinton v. Fischer

A male inmate (petitioner) faced charges of lewd conduct and interfering with an employee after exposing his genitals to female food service workers. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty, though the charge of interfering with an employee was later dismissed on administrative appeal. The subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding confirmed the finding of guilt for lewd conduct. The court concluded that substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and witness testimony, supported the determination, noting that the petitioner's conflicting testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve.

inmate misconductlewd conductdisciplinary hearingsubstantial evidencecredibilitycorrectional facilityadministrative appealCPLR article 78judicial reviewprison discipline
References
4
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

Freire v. Goord

Petitioner challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding him guilty of prison disciplinary violations. The charges stemmed from an organized inmate demonstration and work stoppage at Five Points Correctional Facility in June 2002, where petitioner, along with other inmates, allegedly refused direct orders to work or return to cells. Substantial evidence, including a misbehavior report, correctional officer testimonies, and surveillance video, supported the finding of guilt. Petitioner's defense, claiming ignorance of the stoppage and inability to hear orders, raised credibility issues resolved against him. The court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

Prison Disciplinary RulesInmate DemonstrationWork StoppageRefusal to Obey OrdersCorrectional FacilitySubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssuesSurveillance VideotapeMisbehavior ReportCorrection Officer Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goncalves v. Goord

An inmate, referred to as petitioner, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules for making threats and engaging in conduct involving the threat of violence. The charges stemmed from a letter sent to the Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent, Victor T. Herbert, detailing plans to assassinate officers and Herbert himself. During the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner admitted to writing the letter, stating it was an expression of frustration and a desire for transfer. The court, citing substantial evidence including the misbehavior report, the letter, and testimony from a correction officer, a social worker (who found the petitioner not psychotic), and the petitioner, confirmed the determination. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the determination was upheld.

Prison disciplinary rulesthreats of violenceinmate misconductAttica Correctional Facilitymisbehavior reportCPLR article 78 proceedingsubstantial evidence reviewmental health evaluationcorrectional servicessuperintendent threat
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Coughlin

Petitioners, inmates at Clinton Correctional Facility, challenged a determination by the facility's Adjustment Committee via a CPLR article 78 proceeding after refusing Sunday labor. They faced misbehavior reports, a hearing, and subsequent punishments including job suspension and keeplock. During the hearing, they were denied rights to present documentary evidence, call witnesses, or have legal representation. The petitioners contended they were entitled to more extensive due process, citing precedent, but the Supreme Court's judgment, which dismissed their application, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court referenced a prior ruling which deemed similar inmate confinement as nonpunitive, thus not triggering strict due process standards.

Inmate rightsDue processAdjustment CommitteePrison disciplineKeeplockCorrectional facilityAdministrative hearingCPLR article 78Appellate reviewConstitutional law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 20 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