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

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sterling Drilling Co. v. Spector

This original proceeding addresses whether witness statements taken by an attorney at the behest of a Workers' Compensation carrier are privileged from discovery. Zoila Medrano, as applicant in the underlying suit, sued Sterling Drilling Company and Sage Energy Company after her husband's death in a work accident. Sterling's Workers' Compensation Carrier, Texas Employers' Insurance Association, hired attorney Michael McKinney to investigate punitive damage exposure, leading to witness statements. The trial court, presided over by Judge Rose Spector, compelled the production of these statements, ruling they were not exempt under attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. The appellate court affirmed this decision, denying Sterling Drilling Company's petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that Sterling failed to meet its burden of proof to establish the asserted privileges, particularly given that no lawsuit was pending when the statements were taken.

Discovery PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineMandamusWitness StatementsPunitive Damages InvestigationWorkers' CompensationIndustrial AccidentTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganci v. Berry

The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. He had been convicted in Suffolk County, New York, for two bank robberies. Petitioner claimed F.B.I. reports containing witness descriptions inconsistent with his appearance were wrongfully withheld, and that local prosecutors failed to disclose witness statements describing the robber's eye color as brown, despite his blue eyes. The court found that state prosecutors were not obligated to furnish F.B.I. reports they had never seen or possessed. However, it ruled that the local prosecutors should have disclosed the witness statements regarding eye color, as they were inconsistent with the petitioner's blue eyes. Despite this, the court determined there was no reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the jury's verdict, given other strong identification evidence and corroborating factors related to the second robbery. Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationExculpatory EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductBank RobberyWitness IdentificationMateriality of EvidenceDue ProcessState Remedies ExhaustionFBI Investigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bing

This case involves a Huntley hearing concerning the admissibility of statements made by defendant Bruce Bing to the police. A robbery-burglary occurred on May 17, 1985, at St. Joachim’s Church in Cedarhurst, Nassau County. Based on information from a reliable confidential informant and an eyewitness description, Detective Glenn Dowd and Detective Joseph Brand arrested Bruce Bing on May 25, 1985. Bing was Mirandized and confessed to the crime, both orally in the police car and in a written statement at the precinct. The defense challenged the voluntariness of the confession due to alleged drug withdrawal symptoms and argued a violation of Bing's right to counsel, citing his existing legal representation in Ohio for unrelated charges. The court found the informant reliable, established probable cause for the arrest, and concluded that Bing's statements were voluntarily given and admissible. The court also determined that the defendant's out-of-state legal representation on an out-of-state charge did not trigger New York's indelible right to counsel.

Huntley HearingAdmissibility of StatementsVoluntariness of ConfessionMiranda RightsProbable CauseRight to CounselConfidential Informant ReliabilityOut-of-State RepresentationDrug Withdrawal SymptomsCriminal Procedure Law
References
21
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. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Khoury

The case involves Relator Cherokee Steel Fabricators, Inc. seeking a mandamus to vacate a trial court's order compelling discovery of documents related to a fatal accident. Three types of documents were at issue: an adjustor's report, a consulting engineer's report, and witness statements. Cherokee claimed these documents were privileged under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(3)(b), (c), and (d), arguing they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court found that witness statements were explicitly exempt from discovery. It further determined that the adjustor's report and the consulting engineer's report were privileged, as there was good cause to believe a lawsuit would be filed against Cherokee given the severe consequences and the unusual nature of the investigation. The court conditionally granted the mandamus, ordering the respondent to vacate the discovery order.

Discovery DisputeMandamus ProceedingWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationAccident InvestigationInsurance ClaimsTexas Civil ProcedurePrivilege ClaimWitness Statements
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evan Y.

The Family Court of Tioga County found a child, born in 1994, to be abused by his father (respondent) based on the child's out-of-court statements of being repeatedly fondled and exhibited troubling behaviors such as sexual acting out, nightmares, bed-wetting, and suicidal tendencies. Petitioner initiated this child abuse proceeding, and the respondent, who had a prior neglect adjudication, chose not to testify at the fact-finding hearing. Expert witnesses, clinical social workers Mary Bado and Sarah Walsh, provided corroborating testimony that the child's behaviors were consistent with sexual abuse. Family Court credited this expert testimony and found sufficient corroboration for the child's statements. The respondent appealed the finding of sexual abuse, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting the permissible inference against the non-testifying respondent and the ample corroborative evidence from the expert witnesses.

child abusesexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10corroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild witnessesappellate reviewparental rightssexual acting out
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,504 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