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

Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc. v. Cook Truck Lines, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute where Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., a shipper, sought an injunction against common carriers and Teamsters Local 327. The carriers, including Cook Truck Lines and Hoover Motor Express, refused customary service to Kerrigan due to Local 327 employees not crossing picket lines set by another union (Iron Workers) at Kerrigan's plants. Kerrigan argued this refusal violated state common law and statutes regarding a carrier's public duty. The Chancery Court granted a permanent injunction, which Local 327 appealed, asserting federal labor law preemption and contractual rights to refuse service. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the union's conduct was not a federally protected activity or unfair labor practice, nor was there an exclusive federal remedy, thus preserving state court jurisdiction to enforce common carrier duties.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCommon Carrier DutyState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActPicket LineUnfair Labor PracticesConcerted ActivitiesContract Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. H. Rose Truck Line, Inc. v. Ross

Billy R. Ross, a former employee of J. H. Rose Truck Line, Inc., sued for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming he was not paid 1½ times his regular rate for hours exceeding 40 per week and sought double damages and attorney's fees. The defendant, an interstate common carrier, argued that Ross was exempt from FLSA overtime provisions under the Motor Carrier Act, as his work affected the safety of operations. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Ross, interpreting a jury finding that Ross was not a 'mechanic' as controlling. However, the appellate court clarified that the critical factor is whether the employee's duties substantially affect safety of operation, regardless of job title or the proportion of time spent on such duties. Given the jury's finding that Ross's activities did substantially affect safety, despite his denial of being primarily a mechanic, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, finding Ross exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Motor Carrier ActOvertime CompensationExemption from FLSASafety of OperationInterstate Commerce Commission (ICC)Motor Vehicle MechanicsWelder DutiesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00612 [191 AD3d 1088]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Clancy v. Park Line Asphalt Maintenance

Celia Clancy, an office manager, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, asserting that her repetitive work activities for Park Line Asphalt Maintenance aggravated her pre-existing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and herniated cervical discs, causing a disability. Although she had a history of these conditions and had received prior Social Security disability benefits and undergone multiple surgeries, she had returned to full duty work. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed her claim, concluding that her conditions were not dormant and nondisabling prior to her employment with Park Line, thus precluding an occupational disease claim based on exacerbation. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding no evidence that her pre-existing conditions were disabling in a compensation sense before the alleged disablement date. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Division's determination.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeHerniated Cervical DiscsPre-existing ConditionAggravation of ConditionDormant and Nondisabling ConditionWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandOffice Manager
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peros v. Grace Line, Inc.

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Japan Air Lines Co. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd. (JAL) initiated this action against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), its collective bargaining representative, seeking to enjoin a potential strike. JAL contended that the IAM's insistence on changes to the 'Scope' clause, which aimed to require JAL to employ its own personnel for work historically subcontracted, constituted a non-bargainable demand and violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) duty to bargain in good faith. The court determined that the 'Scope' proposal was not a mandatory subject of bargaining as it pertained to fundamental management decisions and only indirectly impacted employee job security. Despite JAL's refusal to bargain on this specific issue, the court found that the IAM's overall conduct did not demonstrate a lack of sincere effort to reach an agreement on other issues. Consequently, JAL's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the previously issued temporary restraining order was dissolved.

Collective BargainingScope ClauseSubcontractingInjunctionRailway Labor ActMandatory BargainingManagerial PrerogativeJob SecurityUnion DisputeStrike Action
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2004

HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. v. Royal Surplus Lines Insurance

This case involves HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. (HRH) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National) seeking to establish Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company's (Royal) obligation to defend HRH in an underlying action and reimburse legal fees. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled that Royal was obligated to defend HRH and reimburse legal fees from December 30, 1999. Upon appeal, this order was modified to change the reimbursement start date to November 22, 2000, and otherwise affirmed. The court rejected Royal's argument that a specific endorsement overrode a general blanket additional insured endorsement, which Royal claimed would make them coprimary insurers with National. The duty to defend was clarified to be triggered upon the commencement of the underlying action against HRH.

Insurance disputeGeneral contractor liabilityAdditional insured endorsementDuty to defendInsurance reimbursementSummary judgmentPolicy interpretationConstruction site accidentPrimary insuranceOther insurance clause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. 09-21-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

L&S Pro-Line, LLC and Lee Burkett v. Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc.

This case involves a business dispute of a two-member Texas limited liability company, L&S Pro-Line (L&S). Appellants, L&S and Lee Burkett, appealed the trial court’s judgments for Appellees Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. The core issues included Burkett's attempt to purchase Gagliano's membership interest under the Company Agreement and Tactical Automation's standing as a third-party beneficiary. The Court of Appeals concluded that Burkett effectively exercised his option to buy Gagliano's interest and that Tactical Automation was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The court affirmed certain portions, reversed and rendered others (particularly concerning breach of contract and Tactical's damages), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings on issues like breach of fiduciary duty prior to the effective buyout.

Business DisputeLimited Liability CompanyMembership Interest BuyoutBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate LawSummary JudgmentCorporate GovernancePartnership Dispute
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 4,242 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