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. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Guidesoft, Inc. D/B/A Knowledge Services v. State Protest Committee, State of Tennessee

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. Bid No. B1644
Regular Panel Decision

Acme American Refrigeration, Inc. v. New York City Department of Education

The petitioners, Acme American Repairs, Inc. and Acme American Refrigeration, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging publicly bid contracts awarded by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for the repair of cafeteria and kitchen equipment. They contended that these contracts constituted 'public work' under Labor Law § 220, mandating a prevailing wage schedule in the bid solicitation, which was absent. Petitioners argued this omission created a competitive disadvantage, as they purportedly based their bids on union-scale rates. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred, asserting that the four-month statute of limitations began when petitioners became aware of the bid specification's contents (October/November 2010), not upon contract award (January 2011). The court granted the dismissal, ruling the petition was time-barred as the injury accrued when petitioners knew or should have known of the bid solicitation's contents.

CPLR article 78public workprevailing wagebid solicitationstatute of limitationstime-barredcontract disputeNew York City Department of Educationcompetitive biddingadministrative determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case concerns a tax-protest suit initiated by American Home Assurance, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. They appealed a take-nothing judgment favoring the Texas Department of Insurance and other appellees. The core of the dispute was the constitutionality of the method used to calculate maintenance-tax surcharges for the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund. Appellants argued the tax was a retroactive direct tax, utilized public funds for private purposes, and violated equal and uniform taxation principles. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, classifying the surcharge as an excise tax for the privilege of doing business, upholding its public purpose, and affirming its equal and uniform application, including a tax credit for the Fund as an insurer of last resort.

Tax Protest SuitInsurance CodeConstitutional LawRetroactive TaxationPublic Purpose DoctrineEqual and Uniform TaxationFranchise TaxWorkers' Compensation FundAdministrative LawStatutory Interpretation
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06182
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Camille v. Federation of Prot. Welfare Agencies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marvens Camille, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Inc.'s motions to extend time to answer and to dismiss the complaint, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment. Camille had sued under the Child Victims Act, alleging abuse in 2002 by a staff member of Learner's Haven, which he claimed was supervised by the Federation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the Federation provided a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrated a meritorious defense, conclusively establishing that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it.

Personal InjuryChild Victims ActDefault JudgmentMotion to DismissReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRVicarious LiabilityOrganizational Responsibility
References
15
Case No. 03-04-00261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

Local Neon Company, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Local Neon Company, Inc. initiated a tax protest lawsuit challenging the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas's assessment of sales and use tax from 1988 to 1995, arguing a lack of sufficient nexus to require tax collection and that their protest letter met statutory requirements. The district court dismissed the case due to a plea to the jurisdiction, finding Local Neon's protest letter did not 'state fully and in detail each reason for recovering the payment.' The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the tax protest suit and declaratory judgment claims for a refund, agreeing that the protest letter was insufficient. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the dismissal of Local Neon's claims seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of the tax code statutes and administrative rules, finding these were not redundant to tax code remedies and should be heard.

Tax LawSales and Use TaxTax Protest SuitDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseAdministrative LawJurisdiction
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp. v. Diamond

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp., a low bidder for two city roofing contracts, had its bids rejected by municipal respondents for failing to meet experience requirements. The IAS Court initially sided with Giampilis, deeming the rejection arbitrary by stating the experience of the Giampilis brothers in a companion corporation should be considered. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the municipal respondents had a rational basis for rejecting the bids. The court highlighted that judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision. It concluded that the bids were non-responsive as the corporate petitioner itself did not meet the specific experience criteria outlined in the bid documents, and there was no legal obligation to 'pierce the corporate veil' to consider the experience of a companion corporation.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCorporate VeilContract BiddingExperience RequirementsGovernment ProcurementNew York LawAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&M Bus Corp. v. New York City Department of Education

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition brought by 23 prospective bidders against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) regarding the propriety of a Request for Bids (RFB) for transporting handicapped children. Petitioners challenged several provisions of the RFB, including employee protection provisions (EPPs), indefinite bid specifications, and a 2% prompt payment discount, arguing they were anticompetitive and violated public bidding laws. The Supreme Court struck the EPPs and other provisions found to inflate bids and directed DOE to provide more accurate information on children's addresses. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the striking of EPPs and other anticompetitive provisions, modified the order regarding the disclosure of children's addresses by vacating that specific requirement due to privacy concerns and remanding for further proceedings, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

Competitive BiddingPublic ContractsEmployee Protection Provisions (EPPs)Anticompetitive PracticesRequest for Bids (RFB)Contract LawGovernment ProcurementJudicial ReviewLabor PeaceProject Labor Agreement (PLA)
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Staten Island Bus, Inc. v. New York City Department of Education

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involves private bus contractors challenging a December 2012 Request for Bids (RFB) from the New York City Department of Education (DOE). The petitioners argued that Employee Protection Provisions (EPPs) in their existing contracts obligated them to include higher labor costs in bids for the new RFB, placing them at a competitive disadvantage. They also claimed the RFB was ambiguously worded regarding the applicability of EPPs. The court denied the petition, ruling that EPPs in existing contracts do not bind contractors for future bids without such requirements and found the RFB was not ambiguous. The proceeding was dismissed, concluding that DOE's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Private bus contractorsEmployee Protection ProvisionsDepartment of EducationBidding lawsPublic contractsLabor provisionsUnionized school bus driversCompetitive biddingCPLR Article 78Mandamus to review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1992

Ehrenburg v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc.

Thomas Ehrenburg, an employee of Outokumpu American Brass Company (OAB) and a member of United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 593 (Union), filed a hybrid action. He alleged breach of contract against OAB for denying him a day-shift machinist job despite his seniority, and breach of the duty of fair representation against the Union for refusing to grieve OAB's action. The defendants argued that an unwritten "no-first-bid" rule, which precluded new journeymen from bidding on their first job posting, justified their actions. Ehrenburg denied knowledge of this rule and claimed it violated the collective bargaining agreement. The District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the existence, incorporation, and applicability of the oral "no-first-bid" agreement.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentSeniority RightsApprenticeship ProgramOral AgreementContract ViolationGrievance ProcessPlant-wide Seniority
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District Council No. 9, International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves an Article 78 proceeding initiated by a union, a painting contractor, and an association of painting contractors against the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Wildcat Service Corporation (Wildcat). Petitioners challenged the TA's award of a contract to Wildcat for painting three subway stations without competitive bidding, arguing it violated Public Authorities Law § 1209. Respondents contended that Wildcat's mission of rehabilitating individuals with poor employment records implicitly exempted it from bidding requirements. The court denied a preliminary injunction and Wildcat's cross-motion to dismiss. Ultimately, the court found the contract to be void under Public Authorities Law § 1209, emphasizing that the strong public policy for competitive bidding outweighed Wildcat's commendable social objectives, and ordered work and payments under the contract to cease.

Competitive BiddingPublic Authorities LawArticle 78 ProceedingPublic WorkNot-for-Profit ExemptionContract VoidabilityGovernment ContractsJudicial ReviewStanding to SueSocial Objectives
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 154 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