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. 03-98-00533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an "additional tax" after its merger, claiming the tax was unconstitutional as it resulted in fiscal year taxpayers paying tax on earned surplus over a longer period than calendar year taxpayers upon ceasing business. The district court sided with Bealls. However, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the additional tax. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state purposes of revenue generation and mitigating fiscal effects of corporate reorganizations, and it did not violate equal protection, equal and uniform taxation, or the federal commerce clause. The court determined the tax applied even-handedly based on previously untaxed earned surplus and Bealls had a substantial nexus with Texas.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc. v. Soft Drink & Brewery Workers Union, Local 812

The case involves a dispute between Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, the plaintiff, and the Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, the defendant. The Union sought arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, alleging that Coca-Cola failed to provide sufficient product to its route sales force, thereby limiting their potential incentive earnings between August 1991 and July 1993. Coca-Cola subsequently filed a lawsuit under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act to enjoin the arbitration, arguing that the dispute encroached upon management's business conduct and risked the disclosure of trade secrets. Presiding Judge Vincent L. Broderick denied Coca-Cola's motion for summary judgment, allowing the arbitration to proceed. The court, however, retained jurisdiction to intervene if the arbitration threatened to interfere with Coca-Cola's management of business processes or endanger its trade secrets.

Collective BargainingArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeIncentive PayTrade SecretsManagement RightsFederal JurisdictionUnion Grievance
References
3
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York

Richard Parisi, a former route deliveryman for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Parisi claimed his 1995 on-the-job knee injury, for which he received Workers' Compensation, left him permanently disabled from his previous role but qualified for other positions within the company. He alleged Coca-Cola failed to provide reasonable accommodation by not reassigning him. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Parisi failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, that his claims were barred by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Statute, and by a mandatory arbitration clause. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that Parisi failed to adequately plead a 'disability' within the meaning of the ADA, as his impairment only disqualified him from a narrow range of jobs. Furthermore, the Court determined that the employer had no general duty to transfer a disabled employee to a different position without a contractual right or established policy for such transfers, thus failing the 'reasonable accommodation' element of his claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeReasonable AccommodationDisability DefinitionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Workers' Compensation StatuteOtherwise Qualified IndividualMajor Life Activity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Board of Estimate

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding initiated by The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York and other city entities, along with Con-Agg Recycling Corp. Coca-Cola challenged the Board of Estimate's approval of Con-Agg's concrete recycling business in The Bronx and an amendment to the urban renewal plan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The core issue was whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) or the Board of Estimate was the proper 'lead agency' responsible for assessing the environmental impact. The trial court and Appellate Division found that DEP's issuance of a conditional negative declaration, rather than the Board of Estimate making the final environmental policy decision, violated SEQRA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'lead agency' with principal responsibility for approving an action must also determine its significant environmental effect, and Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 was invalidly applied to the extent it diminished this responsibility.

Environmental ReviewSEQRALead AgencyConditional Negative DeclarationUrban Renewal PlanArticle 78 ProceedingGovernmental Decision MakingEnvironmental Impact StatementPolicy DecisionMayoral Executive Order No. 91
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rylander v. 3 Beall Bros. 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an additional tax, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated equal protection, uniform taxation, and the federal commerce clause. Bealls claimed the tax disproportionately affected fiscal year taxpayers by taxing them for a longer period upon corporate termination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bealls. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the additional tax was constitutional. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state interests in revenue generation and mitigating corporate reorganizations, and that it applied equally within its class without violating the commerce clause.

Tax LawFranchise TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseFiscal Year TaxpayerCorporate ReorganizationEarned SurplusStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
37
Case No. Nos. 3:00-0448; 3:01-0216; 3:02-0129; 3:02-0152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Kelley

These four consolidated actions involve claims under the Miller Act and ERISA, along with breach of contract cross-claims. The Court conducted a bench trial from June 3 to June 6, 2003. The Court found Mr. Cates and Cates, Inc. in contempt for violating a temporary injunction and ordered them to pay a compliance fine. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs against Cates, Inc. and Heritage for Miller Act violations and against Mr. Cates for breach of his ERISA fiduciary duties. The cross-claims between KTE and Cates, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice due to a mandatory arbitration clause.

Miller ActERISABreach of ContractContempt of CourtFiduciary DutyJoint EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySurety BondPension FundsHealth Funds
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1994

Conatser v. Clarksville Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Eric Conatser, an employee of The Clarksville Coca-Cola Bottling Company, sustained a work-related injury and was subsequently terminated three days after returning to work. Conatser filed a suit for retaliatory discharge, alleging his termination was due to his workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted a directed verdict in favor of the employer, finding no prima facie case of retaliation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed these decisions, ruling that proximity in time between a workers' compensation claim and termination, without additional evidence of satisfactory job performance, is insufficient to establish a causal link for retaliatory discharge. The Court found no material evidence that the workers' compensation claim was a substantial factor in the employer's decision to terminate employment.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationDirected verdictPrima facie caseEmployment-at-willCausal relationshipBurden of proofJob performanceAppellate reviewWrongful termination
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,775 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