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

Overnite Transportation Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed an appeal concerning civil contempt. Overnite Transportation Company had sought civil contempt against Teamsters Local Union No. 480 and its officers for violating court orders during a strike. The trial court dismissed Overnite's petition, ruling that compensatory damages for civil contempt were not available if the contemptuous conduct had ceased before the hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that an order declining to hold a party in civil contempt is appealable and that compensatory damages under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-9-105 are available for forbidden acts, even if the conduct is no longer ongoing. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Civil ContemptAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentCompensatory DamagesInjunctive ReliefLabor DisputeStrikeTennessee LawJudicial ReviewDouble Jeopardy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 267 AD2d 668
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & State

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning two proceedings. Proceeding No. 1, initiated by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA) on behalf of Garmon Carnibucci, sought to confirm an arbitration award regarding the restoration of sick leave accruals for Carnibucci, who was terminated by the Division For Youth (DFY) under Civil Service Law § 71. Proceeding No. 2, commenced by Carnibucci, sought to hold DFY in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior judgment mandating back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and found no contempt, prompting an appeal from the petitioners. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in proceeding No. 1, determining that CSEA was not an aggrieved party since the relief it sought (confirmation of the award) was granted. In proceeding No. 2, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the appointment of a Referee to assess back pay calculations and concluding that DFY was not in contempt due to the lack of specificity in the prior judgment regarding the computation of back pay.

arbitration awardback pay disputesick leave accrualscontempt proceedingCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Civil Service Lawpublic employmentworkers' compensation boardjudicial review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initiated civil contempt proceedings against Local Union No. 3 for violating a temporary injunction issued on October 28, 1971. The injunction prohibited Local 3 from inducing or encouraging its members employed by L. K. Comstock and Co., Lord Electric Co., and J. Livingston & Co. to refuse handling materials from New York Telephone Co. The court found that Local 3, through its attorney's statements and inaction, induced its members to engage in such refusals on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court found Local 3 in civil contempt, ordering it to comply with the injunction, submit a sworn statement of compliance, and pay the NLRB's costs and counsel fees.

Labor LawCivil ContemptTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottNational Labor Relations ActUnion MisconductWork StoppageInducementEmployee Refusal
References
0
Case No. 92 Civ. 4884 (RJW)
Regular Panel Decision

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NY BY ABRAMS v. Foreman

Plaintiffs, the People of the State of New York, moved for civil contempt against Joseph Foreman, Patrick Mahoney, and Robert Sehenck for violating a Preliminary Injunction issued on July 13, 1992, in People v. Operation Rescue Nat’l. The injunction prohibited presenting a fetus to Governor Bill Clinton. Defendants Foreman and Sehenck, along with Harley David Belew, discussed plans to present a fetus ("Baby Nathan") to Governor Clinton during the Democratic National Convention. Despite being aware of the injunction, Foreman and Sehenck facilitated Belew's actions by providing lodging and failing to dissuade him. The Court found Foreman and Sehenck in civil contempt, concluding they aided and abetted the violation. The decision highlighted their clear noncompliance, lack of reasonable diligence, and willful disregard for the judicial decree, and held them liable for liquidated damages as stipulated by the injunction.

Civil ContemptPreliminary InjunctionAiding and AbettingFetus PresentationAbortion ProtestJudicial Decree ViolationDemocratic National ConventionWillful DisobedienceLiquidated DamagesCourt Order Enforcement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2002

BKS Properties, Inc. v. Shumate

Gaston A. Shumate was found in civil contempt for repeatedly violating permanent injunctions issued in 1997, which were affirmed by higher courts. These injunctions prohibited him from litigating against specific parties and concerning certain property. Shumate knowingly filed new lawsuits in state and federal courts, directly contravening these orders. As a sanction, the court ordered him to pay over $128,000 in damages and costs to the aggrieved parties. Furthermore, Shumate faces incarceration until he purges the contempt by paying these sanctions, with the incarceration suspended if he ceases all further litigation against the protected individuals and entities. The court also restricted Shumate's ability to file new pleadings in any court.

Civil contemptInjunction violationSanctionsMonetary penaltiesIncarcerationPro se litigantFrivolous litigationJudicial system integrityBankruptcy proceedingsFederal court
References
18
Case No. 13-71842-ast; 13-72354-ast
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2015

In re 1990's Caterers Ltd.

Richard Bivona, one of the petitioning creditors in an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case against 1990’s Caterers Ltd, was ordered on November 19, 2013, to turn over $30,613.00 in auction sale proceeds to the Chapter 7 Trustee, Kenneth P. Silverman. Despite numerous hearings and orders, including a daily sanction of $200 and a judgment for attorney’s fees and accrued sanctions, Bivona continuously failed to comply. In January 2015, Bivona offered contradictory testimony, claiming he did not possess the funds at the time of the initial order, which the Court deemed false. The Court found Bivona in knowing, clear, and convincing civil contempt and, finding no lesser sanction appropriate due to his pattern of non-compliance, ordered that if he does not turn over the funds by June 22, 2015, a warrant will be issued for his arrest, and he will be held in custody by the United States Marshals until he purges his contempt.

Civil ContemptBankruptcyTurnover OrderSanctionsIncarcerationDebtor-CreditorAsset SaleTrustee EnforcementJudicial AuthorityRule Violation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,333 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