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

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2015

Evans, Ralph Kenneth

This document contains two criminal complaints filed by Ralph-Kenneth Evans. He alleges violations of his constitutional rights and various federal and state codes by officials in Grand Saline and Van Zandt County, Texas. Evans claims unlawful arrest for driving without a license, fraud, extortion, and deprivation of liberty, asserting that the legal system is operating unconstitutionally. The complaints also include a "Surrender of Social Security Card and Number" and a "Release of Power of Appointment," challenging government agencies' jurisdiction over him as a private state citizen. He references numerous legal codes and case precedents to support his claims of sovereign status and demands cessation of alleged trespasses.

Criminal ComplaintConstitutional RightsDue ProcessRight to TravelHabeas CorpusTaxationSocial SecuritySovereign CitizenJurisdictionFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheyne v. Ferro

Plaintiffs, wholesale beer and soft drinks distributors, initiated a lawsuit against Brewery Workers Union, Local No. 263, alleging libel and malicious interference with contractual relations. The union had distributed circulars urging the public to boycott plaintiffs' products due to alleged lower wages and fewer economic benefits for their nonunion drivers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the matter constituted a labor dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court examined whether the complaint described an unfair labor practice or a common law tort, and if state courts were pre-empted from hearing the case. Ultimately, the court determined that the complaint sounded in tort and did not allege an unfair labor practice, thereby affirming state court jurisdiction and denying the motion to dismiss.

Labor DisputeJurisdictionNational Labor Relations BoardPreemption DoctrineTort LawLibelMalicious InterferenceCPLR 3211Motion to DismissState Court Jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larrier v. Miller

This case involves an action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant union seeking damages for assault and battery. The union filed a motion to dismiss the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. The court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to dismiss, insofar as appealed from. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to serve a second amended complaint concerning the second cause of action within ten days from the entry of the order.

Assault and BatteryMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintUnion LiabilityDamagesCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsPanel DecisionLeave to Amend
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mazurajtis v. Maknawyce

The case involves a plaintiff suing the president and treasurer of an unincorporated association for damages resulting from an alleged assault and battery committed by some of its members during a strike. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the complaint. The court identified two procedural defects: the action was improperly brought against both the president and treasurer, when Section 1919 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires it to be brought against one or the other. Furthermore, the complaint failed to allege that the wrongful act was committed by all members through the association, a necessary condition for maintaining such an action. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed the plaintiff twenty days to amend it.

unincorporated associationassault and batteryCode of Civil Procedurejoinder of partiesliability of associationpleading requirementsmotion to dismissleave to amendstrikelabor dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1980

Mylroie v. GAF Corp.

Plaintiff, a former chemical technician and production chemist for GAF Corporation, developed urinary tract problems and was eventually terminated due to chemical exposure. She subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits and initiated a lawsuit against GAF, alleging fraud, intentional tort, and negligence, seeking damages for future bladder cancer. The Supreme Court at Special Term denied GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the plaintiff's injury constituted an occupational disease under the Workers' Compensation Law, thus precluding a common-law personal injury action. Furthermore, the court found the complaint lacked sufficient allegations of intentional harm by the employer to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted GAF's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Occupational DiseaseBladder CancerChemical ExposureWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional TortFraudNegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury ActionAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirby v. Dubinsky

The case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed against David Dubinsky, president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and employee Thomas Bradley, for alleged trespass and destruction of property. Plaintiffs sought treble damages under Real Property Law § 534. The core legal question revolved around the liability of an unincorporated association for the intentional acts of its agents, specifically in the context of General Associations Law § 13. Citing precedents like Martin v. Curran and Torres v. Lacey, the court differentiated between intentional and unintentional wrongs. It concluded that an unincorporated association could only be held liable for an agent's intentional act, such as trespass, if all its members authorized or ratified the act. As the complaint lacked such allegations, the motion to dismiss against David Dubinsky was granted.

TrespassMotion to DismissUnincorporated AssociationAgency LawIntentional TortUnion LiabilityReal Property LawGeneral Associations LawAuthorizationRatification
References
7
Case No. 09-11893
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Estate of Mendelow (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

This memorandum decision addresses a motion by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), seeking leave to amend a complaint against Steven B. Mendelow and other defendants to recover fraudulent transfers. The Trustee's original complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Mendelow knew or should have known about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The court outlines the history of the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, Mendelow's role as a sophisticated investor and operator of feeder funds like Telfran, and how he allegedly received guaranteed returns and fictitious profits (Extra P&L) from BLMIS. The decision discusses the impact of evolving pleading standards and the applicability of the Section 546(e) safe harbor on the Trustee's claims. Despite objections from the defendants regarding undue delay and prejudice due to the deaths of key witnesses (Frank DiPascali and Steven B. Mendelow), the court grants the motion to amend, finding that the Trustee's proposed amendment plausibly alleges Mendelow's actual knowledge of the fraud and that this knowledge can be imputed to the other defendants through agency relationships. However, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks to recover transfers predating January 1, 2001, when BLMIS was formed as a limited liability company. Claims against subsequent transferees are dismissed without prejudice.

SIPA liquidationPonzi schemefraudulent transfersmotion to amend complaintactual knowledgeagency relationshipfeeder fundsfictitious profitssecurities law violationsbankruptcy trustee
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 15,213 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