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. 06-05-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Michael Pullara v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., Paxson & Associates, P.C. and Stephen B. Paxson

Michael Pullara appealed a summary judgment granted against him in favor of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Paxson & Associates, P.C., and Stephen B. Paxson. Pullara sued Paxson and the AAA for damages, alleging Paxson failed to disclose his long-standing role as general counsel for the Greater Houston Builders Association (GHBA) before being selected as an arbitrator in a dispute between Pullara and Becker Fine Builders, Inc. Pullara contended this nondisclosure revealed a bias. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Pullara's claims are barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity, which extends to arbitrators and their sponsoring organizations for acts performed in their quasi-judicial capacity, including failure to disclose potential biases. The court rejected Pullara's arguments that arbitral immunity conflicts with Texas statutory law or prior Texas Supreme Court holdings on evident partiality, emphasizing that the remedy for non-disclosure is vacating the award, not a cause of action for damages.

ArbitrationArbitral ImmunityDisclosureBiasSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJudicial ImmunityLegal Malpractice
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. S. Joseph Co. & Toufic Aris & Fils

The Supreme Court affirmed a judgment dismissing Joseph's petition to stay arbitration and granting Toufic's cross-petition to compel arbitration, concurrently vacating an earlier stay pending appeal. The dispute arose from an oral grain sale agreement between Joseph, a Minnesota seller, and Toufic, a buyer from France and Lebanon, where both parties exchanged telex confirmations that largely agreed but had minor differences, and crucially incorporated a North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) contract containing a broad arbitration clause enforceable in New York. The court determined that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, asserting that New York law governed the arbitration provision due to its significant contacts, irrespective of the performance location. The majority opinion found the arbitration agreement valid, with some justices viewing it as part of a valid sales contract under UCC 2-207(2)(b), while others deemed the arbitration clause separable. Justice Nunez dissented, arguing for a remand to ascertain the validity of the underlying sales agreement, highlighting telex discrepancies and the non-execution of a formal contract as crucial factors impacting the arbitration agreement's existence.

Arbitration AgreementContract FormationChoice of LawUniform Commercial CodeInternational TradeGrain SaleTelex ConfirmationNAEGA ContractMaterial AlterationSeparability Doctrine
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1976

In re the Arbitration between S. M. Rose Corp., & Meyers

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed a judgment denying the employer's application to stay arbitration and granting the union's cross-petition to compel arbitration. The court emphasized the strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration for labor disputes. It ruled that the employer's objections, including those related to subcontracting and consulting employees on repair estimates, were arbitrable as per CPLR 7501, which states courts should not consider the merits of a claim when deciding arbitrability. The court also dismissed the employer's antitrust argument, finding no prima facie showing that the union's proposals would violate antitrust laws.

ArbitrationLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingAntitrust LawArbitrabilityCPLR 7501Court of AppealsAppellate DivisionSupreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dworkes & Chalek

This case involves an application by a petitioner to stay arbitration against respondent Chalek, stemming from disputes related to a partnership agreement dated July 18, 1961. The partnership agreement includes an arbitration clause for controversies arising out of the contract. The petitioner argued that the disputes were not subject to arbitration due to unambiguous terms, lack of explicit arbitrator permission for interpretation, and the improper inclusion of an agreement without an arbitration clause. The court found the petitioner's contentions without merit, affirming that while the court determines if an arbitrable dispute exists, the interpretation of a broadly agreed-upon arbitration clause is for the arbitrators. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, the petition dismissed, and the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeStay of ArbitrationMotion DeniedArbitrabilityScope of ArbitrationAmerican Arbitration AssociationDispute ResolutionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Jandrew & County of Cortland

Petitioner, a County of Cortland employee, was terminated for failing to maintain a valid driver's license and for failing to disclose a prior conviction on job applications. The petitioner's grievance was submitted to binding arbitration, resulting in an award for reinstatement with back pay and benefits. The County appealed the Supreme Court's order confirming the arbitration award, arguing issues of arbitrability, the arbitrator exceeding authority, and public policy violations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the County waived its right to contest arbitrability by participating in arbitration and that the arbitrator's decision did not exceed authority or violate public policy.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceEmployee TerminationDriver's LicenseUndisclosed ConvictionArbitrabilityPublic PolicyWaiverCivil Service Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Agress & Brouillet

Petitioner sought an order to direct arbitration against the respondents after they allegedly refused to permit the petitioner to complete a contract for work, labor, and services on the respondents' premises. The contract included a specific arbitration clause covering disputes concerning the construction/meaning of specifications or the true value of extra work. The respondents opposed, arguing that the issue of contract termination or its justification was not covered by the arbitration clause. The court, citing precedent, determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not encompass disputes regarding a breach of contract by either party. Consequently, finding no arbitrable dispute under the contract, the court denied the motion to direct arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to Compel ArbitrationBreach of ContractLimited Arbitration Clause
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Carborundum Co. & Wagner

The court affirmed an order that granted a stay to the petitioner in arbitration proceedings. Additionally, the order denied a motion made by the unions to compel the petitioner to proceed with arbitration. The decision included an award of $10 costs and disbursements. All judges concurred with the ruling.

arbitrationstay of proceedingsmotion practicecosts and disbursementspanel decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Triple P Realty Corp. & Peoria Penny Park, Inc.

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration concerning a contract for the purchase of real estate, construction of a garage, and a long-term net lease. The contract included an arbitration clause for disputes 'pertaining to the terms of this agreement.' The respondent sought to use arbitration not to interpret existing terms, but to incorporate new or changed terms due to altered circumstances. The court ruled that arbitration cannot be compelled for controversies beyond the explicit scope of the contract. It further stated that the arbitration clause's language was not specific enough to permit modification of the contract's terms through arbitration. Consequently, the petitioner's application to stay arbitration was granted, and the respondent's cross-motion was denied.

ArbitrationContract DisputeReal EstateScope of ArbitrationContract ModificationStay of ArbitrationCommercial TransactionsJudicial ReviewArbitration ClauseAgreement Terms
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between George Rattray & Co. & Trenz

Petitioner, George Battray & Company, Inc., sought to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union following the sale of its assets by Hardwick, Hindle, Inc. (its parent company) to Instruments for Industry, Inc. and the subsequent termination of all employees. The union raised nine issues for arbitration, later reducing them to six. The court analyzed whether these disputes were arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement, which required disputes to arise under the agreement and concern its interpretation. The court found that the union failed to present sufficient evidentiary facts to establish an arbitrable dispute regarding the employer's good faith in terminating business, plant relocation, lockout, or the obligation for the purchaser to assume the collective bargaining agreement. However, the court determined that an arbitrable dispute existed concerning the 'floating' holiday pay, as the right to this pay accrued on the first day of the year. The stay of arbitration was granted for all issues except the 'floating' holiday pay.

arbitration staycollective bargaining agreementemployee terminationasset saleunion disputegood faith business terminationarbitrabilityfloating holiday paysuccessor clause interpretationlabor law
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 2,971 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