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
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers

An employer initiated a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against the United Packinghouse Workers of America and other labor organizations for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, citing strikes and work stoppages in New York in March 1948. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, challenging the court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and arguing that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act was unconstitutional. They contended it exceeded Article III, Section 2 limitations, infringed upon the Tenth Amendment, and violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause through discriminatory application to unincorporated labor organizations and improper service of process. The court, however, denied all motions. It affirmed that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, constitutionally created substantive federal rights for enforcing collective bargaining agreements and validly established federal jurisdiction and procedural rules for such suits, including service of process on labor organizations.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kipbea Baking Co. v. Strauss

Plaintiff employer sues two unions, Local 802 and Local 3, for $250,000 in damages under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, alleging breaches of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiff, Kipbea Baking Co., ceased baking operations, leading to picketing by Local 3 and a refusal by Local 802's drivers to cross the picket line, which the plaintiff claims caused business harm. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata from a prior state court action and lack of breach of contract claims, asserting exclusive NLRB jurisdiction. The court rejected the res judicata and exclusive jurisdiction arguments, but found the complaint failed to adequately allege specific breaches of contract under Section 301. The court indicated that the acts described might constitute violations under Section 303 of the Act (secondary boycott activities) and dismissed the complaint, granting leave for the plaintiff to amend to allege jurisdiction under Section 303.

Collective BargainingLabor-Management Relations ActSection 301Section 303Unfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottRes JudicataJurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Bankers Ass'n of New York State Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

This case involves an action brought by the Independent Bankers Association of New York State, Inc. and The Canadaigua National Bank and Trust Company against Marine Midland Bank, N.A. and Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Marine Midland violated Section 36 of the National Banking Act by operating an automated teller machine (ATM) at a Wegman's supermarket, constituting unauthorized branch banking. Concurrently, a state law claim was brought against Wegman's for violating Section 131 of the New York Banking Law, which prohibits unauthorized banking activities. Wegman's filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim, specifically concerning the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a party not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction. The court determined that it possessed both the constitutional power under Article III and the statutory power under 12 U.S.C. Section 36 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 to exercise pendent party jurisdiction. Finding that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants would be served by hearing the claims together, the court exercised its discretion and denied Wegman’s motion to dismiss.

Pendant JurisdictionNational Banking ActNew York Banking LawATMBranch BankingSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial PowerFederal Question JurisdictionArticle IIIStatutory Construction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, for alleged recognitional or organizational picketing. This picketing was asserted to be in violation of section 10(1) and section 158(b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employer, Genmar Electrical Contracting, had recently recognized United Construction Trades & Industrial Employees International Union (UCTIU) as the lawful representative of its employees. The Court found reasonable cause to believe that Local Union No. 3's picketing aimed to force Genmar to recognize their union or compel employees to switch their affiliation, constituting an unfair labor practice. Concluding that injunctive relief was just and proper, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Local Union No. 3 from such picketing.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticePicketingNational Labor Relations ActOrganizational PicketingRecognitional PicketingCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationSection 10(l)
References
10
Case No. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 10,854 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