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. 03-01-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

HEB Ministries, Inc. Southern Bible Institute And Hispanic Bible Institute/Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown/HEB Ministries, Inc.

HEB Ministries, Inc., operating Tyndale Theological Seminary, challenged the constitutionality of Texas Education Code provisions requiring private postsecondary institutions to obtain state certification or accreditation for granting degrees and using terms like "seminary." The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board counterclaimed for injunctions and administrative penalties. The district court found the degree-granting regulation constitutional but the "seminary" term regulation unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the degree-granting regulation and upheld the $170,000 penalty. It reversed the district court's finding on the "seminary" term, declaring it constitutional, and reinstated a $3,000 penalty, remanding for a permanent injunction consistent with its opinion.

ConstitutionalityFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseTexas Education CodeHigher Education RegulationDegree-Granting AuthorityAccreditation StandardsReligious Educational Institutions
References
43
Case No. M2005-02719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

Wilson County Board of Education v. Wilson County Education Association and Steve Johnson

An assistant principal, Steve Johnson, was transferred to a teaching position by the Wilson County Board of Education. He, along with the Wilson County Education Association, grieved the transfer under a locally negotiated agreement. After the grievance was denied through internal steps, they sought to compel arbitration in the Chancery Court for Wilson County. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that assistant principals are statutorily similar to principals, giving the director of schools unrestrained authority to transfer them. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that despite the agreement mentioning "binding arbitration," it also stated that the arbitrator "may recommend" remedies, creating an inconsistency that prevented a "meeting of the minds" on the final resolution procedure, thus rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Education Professional Negotiations ActGrievance ProcedureArbitration AgreementMeeting of the MindsContract InterpretationTeacher TransferAssistant PrincipalStatutory AuthoritySchool Board PowersBinding vs. Advisory Arbitration
References
29
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1982

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. (Parochial) contracted with the Board of Education of the City of New York (Board) to transport students. During a wildcat strike, Parochial ceased services, citing safety concerns due to violence and picketing. The Board, however, maintained that Parochial could have provided service with police protection and found alternative transportation. Parochial sought payment under a "Cessation of Service" clause, which the Board denied, also raising an affirmative defense regarding non-compliance with Education Law § 3813. The Special Term initially dismissed the defense and denied summary judgment, but the appellate court modified this, finding that Parochial did not substantially comply with its contractual obligations to "attempt" service, despite police protection offers. Ultimately, the court granted the Board's motion, dismissing both Parochial's and co-plaintiff Local 100's complaints.

Contract DisputeTransportation ServicesWildcat StrikeBreach of ContractEducation LawNotice of ClaimSubstantial ComplianceSummary JudgmentImpossibility of PerformancePicket Line
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05817 [152 AD3d 764]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Matter of Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v. Newburgh Teachers' Assn.

In this case, the Newburgh Teachers' Association appealed an order that granted the Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the Association's cross motion to compel arbitration. The dispute centered on the Association's demand for the Board to implement measures concerning student discipline and suspension. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that such demands are nonarbitrable on public policy grounds. The court cited New York's Education Law, which grants boards of education discretion in establishing disciplinary rules, thus prohibiting arbitration on this matter.

ArbitrationPublic Sector DisputeCollective BargainingStudent DisciplineEducation LawPublic Policy ProhibitionNonarbitrable GrievanceAppellate Division Second DepartmentSchool District AuthorityTeachers' Association
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04868 [231 AD3d 1492]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Matter of Buffalo Teachers' Fedn. (Board of Educ. of the Buffalo City Sch. Dist.)

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order and judgment that denied the petitioner's request to vacate an arbitration award and instead confirmed the award. The court reiterated that judicial review of arbitration awards is highly restricted. It found that the arbitrator acted within his power by interpreting and applying a limitation within the relevant collective bargaining agreement. The court emphasized that it lacks the authority to overturn an arbitrator's interpretation, even if it disagrees, particularly when the plain language of the agreement supports it. Therefore, the appeal from the Supreme Court's decision was affirmed without costs.

ArbitrationJudicial ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardArbitrator PowerPublic PolicyIrrationalityExceeding Power
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02429 [227 AD3d 1435]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2024

Matter of Buffalo Teachers' Fedn. (Board of Educ. of Buffalo City Sch. Dist.)

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which had granted a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The initial arbitration found a grievance non-arbitrable due to an untimely demand under the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had erred in determining that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded substantive law and that the award was irrational. The Appellate Division emphasized the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards, stating that an arbitrator's rulings are largely unreviewable unless they exceed their power. Consequently, the appellate court denied the petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted the application to confirm it.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardManifest Disregard of LawIrrational AwardJudicial ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementTimeliness of Arbitration DemandAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bogutski v. Board of Education

The plaintiff, Angelina Bogutski, sued the Board of Education of the City of New York and an individual custodian-engineer for injuries sustained during her employment. The court ruled that the negligence action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6). The individual defendant, also an employee of the Board of Education, is considered a coemployee. Therefore, the plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining a negligence action against a coemployee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, granting summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationNegligence ActionCo-employee ImmunityEmployer LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealEducation LawAppellate DivisionInjury During EmploymentGovernment Employer
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 24,103 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