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

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

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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacqueline B. v. Peter K.

This case, presided over by Justice Paula J. Hepner, addresses the admissibility of out-of-court hearsay statements made by a child in a motion to modify an existing joint custody order. The petitioner sought to introduce such statements through witness testimony, which the respondent objected to. The court examined existing case law, noting that while the 'traditional requirements of the adversary system' may be relaxed in custody cases, there is no specific statutory or judicial exception for admitting a child's hearsay statements in custody proceedings unless the allegations are based on abuse or neglect. The court distinguished this case from those involving abuse or neglect, aligning with Ponzini v Ponzini, and ruled that since the modification petition does not allege abuse or neglect, the child's out-of-court statements are not admissible.

CustodyHearsay EvidenceChild StatementsFamily LawModification of CustodyAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse and NeglectFamily Court ActJoint CustodyJudicial Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,411 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