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

Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

The plaintiff, a jobber in the dress industry, sought a federal injunction to prevent the collection of a New York State court money judgment. This judgment confirmed an arbitration award against the plaintiff for failing to contribute to health, welfare, and retirement funds, and for using non-union contractors, in violation of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiff argued the demands were unlawful under the Labor Management Relations Act and that the collective agreements violated the Sherman Act. The federal court denied the plaintiff's motion, citing the Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283), the plaintiff's failure to properly litigate the illegality claims in state court, and the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm. The court found that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to raise its arguments in state court and did not carry the burden for a preliminary injunction.

InjunctionLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardSherman ActFederal JurisdictionState Court JudgmentIrreparable HarmSupersedeas BondAnti-Injunction Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diabo v. Delisle

Shaynah J. Diabo (mother) initiated a federal action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention seeking the return of her minor child from the child's father and paternal grandparents. A previous April 2006 Order mandated the child's return to the mother in Canada and prohibited parties from seeking further custody orders. When the father subsequently filed a custody proceeding in Onondaga County Family Court, the mother sought a permanent injunction in federal court. The court granted the permanent injunction, finding that the state court action was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' and 'relitigation' exceptions. The federal court held that its retained jurisdiction and prior judgment on the child's best interest and habitual residence in Canada precluded relitigation of these issues in state court. The court also dismissed George M. Raus as a respondent and vacated an earlier Access Agreement, while directing the father to arrange visitation through a mediation center in Canada.

Child AbductionICARAHague ConventionPermanent InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Court InterferenceFamily Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. 3815 9th Avenue Meat & Produce Corp.

The Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board petitioned the court for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition sought an interim order to halt alleged unlawful labor practices and mandate the reinstatement of five employees discharged on October 22, 2011, amid union organizing efforts. The court found reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the Act, noting the close temporal proximity between the employer learning of union activity and the discharges, and the pretextual nature of the employer's cost-saving justification. It also determined that injunctive relief, including a cease and desist order and employee reinstatement, was just and proper to restore the status quo and mitigate the chilling effect on unionization caused by the discharges. Consequently, the court granted the petition for injunctive relief.

National Labor Relations ActNLRBSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticeEmployee DischargeUnion OrganizingReinstatementCease and DesistLabor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durkin v. Shone

The plaintiff, an unnamed entity likely associated with the Department of Labor, filed suit against Allied Agencies seeking a permanent injunction for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint detailed the defendant's failure to adhere to minimum wage and overtime requirements, as well as inadequate record-keeping for its homeworkers. Allied Agencies argued that the homeworkers were independent contractors, that its operations were not interstate commerce, and that its business qualified for the FLSA's retail or service establishment exemption. The court ultimately ruled that the homeworkers were employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, thus covered by the Act. Furthermore, the defendant failed to prove eligibility for the retail or service establishment exemption. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against Allied Agencies.

Fair Labor Standards ActMinimum WageOvertime CompensationHomeworkersIndependent ContractorsInterstate CommerceProduction of Goods for CommerceRetail or Service Establishment ExemptionWage and Hour DivisionInjunction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SR International Business Insurance v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC

Royal Indemnity Company, an insurer in the ongoing World Trade Center (WTC) litigation, sought to enjoin a declaratory judgment action filed in New York State Supreme Court by the Port Authority, Silverstein Parties, and WTC Retail LLC (collectively, "the Insureds"). The Insureds' state action aimed to declare that a "Conceptual Framework" for WTC redevelopment would not adversely affect their insurance recovery rights. Royal, joined by other insurers, argued that the injunction was necessary under the All Writs Act and exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act. The court, presided over by Judge Mukasey, denied Royal's motion, ruling that the injunction did not fall within the narrow exceptions of the Anti-Injunction Act, specifically the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" clause. The court emphasized that the WTC coverage litigation constituted in personam contract disputes and that parallel state and federal actions, even with overlapping issues, do not impair federal jurisdiction, and therefore, an injunction merely to prevent duplicative litigation or preclusive effects is not permissible.

Anti-Injunction ActAll Writs ActFederal vs. State JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActionWTC Insurance LitigationConcurrent JurisdictionInjunction DenialIn Rem vs. In PersonamDuplicative LitigationCollateral Estoppel
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amstar Corp. v. United Sugar Workers Local 9

In this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation operating a sugar refinery in Brooklyn, sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendant union from striking in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. The union engaged in a two-day walkout, asserting the plaintiff breached a 'no reprisal' commitment made during contract negotiations. The court found a binding agreement in effect that mandated arbitration for disputes and included a 'no-strike' clause. The union's attempt to rescind the contract was rejected. The court concluded that the dispute was arbitrable and that injunctive relief was warranted under equitable principles to preserve the integrity of the arbitration process and prevent further injury. The application for a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining future strikes related to the dispute and directing the parties to submit the matter to arbitration.

Labor Management Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationUnion DisputeContract InterpretationIrreparable InjuryMootness
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. American Locomotive Co.

This case involves a motion by the United States of America for a preliminary injunction to prevent the continuation of a strike at the American Locomotive Co. (ALCO) plant in Dunkirk, New York, by the United Steel Workers of America, CIO. The strike, which commenced in August 1952 over wages and benefits, was deemed to imperil national safety due to ALCO's crucial role in producing materials for the Atomic Energy Program. Chief Judge Knight considered the constitutionality of the injunction provisions of Sections 206 and 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), which the Union challenged. The court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and its jurisdiction, denying the Union's motions to dismiss and dissolve the temporary restraining order, and consequently granted the Government's motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the strike.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational EmergencyStrike InjunctionAtomic Energy ProgramNational SecurityConstitutional LawJudicial PowerInterstate Commerce
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeBlanc v. Shirey

The plaintiffs challenged a $500 penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for allegedly filing false W-4 forms, arguing it violated their Constitutional right to due process and sought to enjoin its collection. They contended the liability was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply. Presiding Judge Joe J. Fisher denied the injunctive relief, citing a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that considered such penalties as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. The court found no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs' claims of tax exemption and determined that the IRS procedures provided adequate due process, which the plaintiffs failed to properly utilize. Additionally, the court addressed and dismissed separate claims by some plaintiffs against private parties, deeming them frivolous and brought in bad faith. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the cases with prejudice, and ordered some plaintiffs to pay court costs and attorneys' fees.

Due ProcessTax PenaltyIRS ProceduresFalse Withholding InformationAnti-Injunction ActSummary JudgmentFrivolous LitigationJudicial SanctionsConstitutional RightsWage Garnishment
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 7,746 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