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

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cone v. Stranahan

In the fall of 2005, the plaintiff sought to purchase unimproved land from the defendant in Warren County. The defendant disclosed wetlands and existing dirt piles. After executing a contract, workers' compensation liens were discovered, which were resolved through an escrow account. Subsequently, the plaintiff learned the defendant had dumped more fill post-contract and involved the Adirondack Park Agency (APA), which initiated an investigation. The plaintiff demanded assurances of no APA violations, which the defendant refused. The defendant then issued a 'time of the essence' closing notice, which the plaintiff failed to attend. The plaintiff sued for specific performance. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion, ruling that potential APA violations rendered the title unmarketable and ordered the defendant to cooperate. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that potential regulatory violations do not affect marketable title and that the contract did not obligate the defendant to comply with an APA investigation. The appellate court granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.

Real Estate ContractSpecific PerformanceMarketable TitleEnvironmental RegulationsAPA InvestigationSummary JudgmentProperty DumpingContract BreachTime of the EssenceAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 08-CV-2503
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. Gutierrez

This case originated from plaintiffs and intervenor-plaintiffs challenging the 2008 recreational summer flounder fishery management rule, alleging violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with additional claims against the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) for violating its Compact and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. The court previously denied ASMFC's motion to dismiss, classifying it as a 'quasi-federal agency' subject to APA review due to extensive federal involvement and its de facto regulatory authority. In the current ruling, the court denies ASMFC's motion for reconsideration of that decision, reaffirming its stance that ASMFC is amenable to APA review. However, the court grants ASMFC's request to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, allowing for appellate review on the questions of APA applicability and Eleventh Amendment immunity, citing the significant legal issues, potential for differing opinions, and the possibility of materially advancing the litigation's termination.

Fishery ManagementAdministrative LawInterstate CompactJudicial ReviewEleventh Amendment ImmunityFederalismAPA ReviewQuasi-Federal Agency DoctrineEnvironmental LawMarine Fisheries Regulation
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Pilots Ass'n v. AMR Corp. (In Re AMR Corp.)

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) sought a declaratory judgment that its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with American Airlines, Inc. (American) expired in 2008 and thus could not be rejected under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. American argued the CBA became 'amendable' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), keeping its terms in effect during negotiations. The Court, following Second Circuit precedent, found that the CBA did not expire but became amendable under the RLA, making it subject to Section 1113. Consequently, the Court denied APA's motion for summary judgment and granted American's motion to dismiss.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActSection 1113Declaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeStatus Quo ProvisionsAmendable Contracts
References
58
Case No. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. 16-01138 (SHL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Amr Corp.)

Plaintiffs John Krakowski, Kevin Horner, and M. Alicia Sikes, former TWA pilots now employed by American Airlines, challenged an interest arbitration award concerning their contractual rights, alleging due process violations due to arbitrator bias and ex parte communications. The arbitration, conducted under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), resolved an impasse between American Airlines and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) regarding a new collective bargaining agreement and the seniority rights of TWA pilots. Defendants American and APA moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding, arguing plaintiffs lacked standing and the action was time-barred. The Court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that individual employees generally lack standing to challenge an arbitration award where the union and employer were the sole parties, and further, that the complaint was untimely under the RLA's 10-day statute of limitations, which the Court found was not subject to equitable tolling.

Arbitration AwardRailway Labor ActStanding (Legal)Statute of LimitationsEquitable TollingDue ProcessArbitrator BiasEx Parte CommunicationsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Law
References
65
Case No. 11-15463
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2014

Krakowski v. American Airlines, Inc. (In re AMR Corp.)

The Defendant, American Airlines, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss a modified supplemental class action complaint brought by its pilots, who were formerly employees of TWA. These Plaintiffs alleged that their union, the Air Line Pilots Association (APA), breached its duty of fair representation concerning the loss of special job opportunities at the St. Louis hub, which arose after American's acquisition of TWA and the subsequent abrogation of their collective bargaining agreement during American's bankruptcy under Section 1113. The plaintiffs accused the APA of failing to bargain for them, failing to replicate lost opportunities, and misrepresenting their interests in an arbitration. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims relating to the union's bargaining efforts and preclusion of seniority modification, deeming these issues either precluded by previous Section 1113 proceedings or previously adjudicated. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the claims regarding the procedural conduct and fairness of the arbitration itself, finding these allegations plausible and requiring further factual development.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSeniority RightsAirline PilotsClass ActionRailway Labor ActSection 1113
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Muset v. Ishimaru

Mihai Muset, a pro se plaintiff and former IRS senior attorney, brought an action against the EEOC and IRS Commissioners. His claims stemmed from a reprimand issued by an EEOC Administrative Judge, Susan Flynn, during a 2006 settlement conference, where Muset was accused of lacking settlement authority and engaging in inappropriate conduct. Muset alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Fifth Amendment due process, and Title VII. He also claimed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violation against the IRS for delayed document production. The court dismissed the APA claim, finding that the relevant section did not apply to attorney misconduct reprimands without a statutory hearing requirement. Muset's due process claim was dismissed because reputational harm alone does not trigger Fifth Amendment protections, and he received adequate notice. The Title VII claim was rejected as Muset was not an EEOC employee. The FOIA claim was moot for documents received and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for withheld documents due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, Muset's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against defense counsel was denied.

Attorney misconductEEOC sanctionsAdministrative Procedure ActDue process rightsFreedom of Information ActTitle VII claimRule 11 sanctionsSubject matter jurisdictionSummary judgment motionReputational harm
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 17 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