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

Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 342

Plaintiff Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC ("Stop & Shop") sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union Local 342 ("Local 342" or "the union") from proceeding with an arbitration demand. The arbitration involves Stop & Shop's unilateral implementation of the "LMS system," an electronic system for managing inventory and manpower, which the union alleges violates their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Stop & Shop argues the arbitration clause in the CBA does not cover the LMS system. The Court asserted jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act. Applying the principles from the "Steelworkers Trilogy," the court found the CBA's arbitration clause to be broad and determined that the union presented colorable arguments that the dispute regarding the LMS system implicates provisions related to "Prior Privileges" and "technological changes" in the CBA, as well as hours and wages. The court concluded that it could not say with "positive assurance" that the arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Consequently, the court denied Stop & Shop's request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Labor ArbitrationCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionArbitrabilityLabor DisputeLMS SystemUnion RightsEmployer Management RightsFederal CourtStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brendan Van Voris and Josephine Durkin v. Team Chop Shop, LLC D/B/A Chop Shop MMA Jerry Howell

Brendan Van Voris and his wife, Josephine Durkin, appealed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing their negligence and gross negligence claims against Team Chop Shop, LLC d/b/a Chop Shop MMA and Jerry Howell. The claims arose from an injury Van Voris sustained during an aikido course after signing a pre-injury release. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding the release met fair notice requirements. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, stating that pre-injury releases for gross negligence are against public policy and that such claims are not legally inseparable from negligence for the purpose of such a release. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the gross negligence claims.

pre-injury releasegross negligencenegligencesummary judgmentpublic policyexemplary damagesfair noticeexpress negligence doctrineconspicuousnessmartial arts injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Club Transportation Corp.

This case involves an employer, Club Transportation Corp., accused of an unfair labor practice by an entity referred to as "Appellant." The accusation stemmed from the employer's requirement that former employees of Suburban Bus Co., Inc. join the Transport Workers Union of America as a condition of their new employment. The Appellant initially found this constituted an unfair labor practice, arguing it discouraged membership in the employees' former union. However, the majority opinion reversed this finding and granted the employer's application, concluding that such discrimination was permissible due to a valid pre-existing closed shop agreement between Club Transportation Corp. and the Transport Workers Union. Presiding Justice Nolan dissented, contending that the closed shop agreement, made with a properly designated representative, legally justified the employment condition under Labor Law § 704, subd. 5, and the order upholding the Appellant's initial finding should have been affirmed.

Unfair Labor PracticeClosed Shop AgreementLabor UnionCondition of EmploymentDiscriminationCollective BargainingAppellate DecisionDissenting OpinionLabor LawEmployer Employee Relations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygiene Industries v. Plastic, Metal, Novelty & Allied Workers' Union Local 132-98

Hygiene Industries sought to prevent Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 132-98, I.L.G.W.U. from arbitrating a grievance concerning the proposed closure of two plants in Brooklyn, New York. Hygiene argued the dispute was not arbitrable because the collective bargaining and settlement agreements might expire before the plant closings. The Union contended that the settlement agreement’s duration was tied to Hygiene’s operations in Sardis, Mississippi, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered the dispute. The court emphasized the strong federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes. Ultimately, the motion to enjoin arbitration was denied, as the court found the expiration date of the Settlement Agreement ambiguous and a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective BargainingPlant ClosureInjunctionGrievance ProcedureContract DurationFederal PreemptionJudicial DeferenceArbitrability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Vilar, Inc.

Briargrove Shopping Center, the appellant, initiated a lawsuit against Vilar, Inc., d/b/a Swedish Auto Repair, alleging a breach of lease terms. Vilar, Inc. filed a cross-claim, asserting that Briargrove's construction of a theatre constituted constructive eviction by significantly reducing parking and access areas. A jury found in favor of Vilar, Inc., determining a material breach of lease and constructive eviction. Briargrove Shopping Center appealed, raising seventeen points of error concerning the submission of special issues, contract interpretation, damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court, after reviewing the evidence, overruled all points of error and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Lease disputeConstructive evictionMaterial breachCommercial leaseTenant rightsLandlord dutiesJury issuesAppellate reviewDamagesAttorney's fees
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farulla v. Freundlich, Inc.

The plaintiff labor union, representing the doll and toy industry in New York City, sought an injunction against a defendant manufacturer for violating an arbitration award. The award, issued on May 25, 1934, mandated "closed shops" and other employment terms following an agreement reached under the New York Regional Labor Board. The defendant was accused of moving its factory to Massachusetts to avoid union labor, paying subminimum wages, and other breaches. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenman, affirmed the enforceability of the industrial arbitration agreement, ruling it was not void under the National Industrial Recovery Act nor an illegal monopoly. A preliminary injunction was granted to prevent violations of the award, although the factory's relocation itself was not enjoined at this preliminary stage.

Labor LawArbitration AwardInjunctionClosed ShopNational Industrial Recovery ActCollective Bargaining AgreementContract BreachIndustrial RelationsUnion RightsEmployer Obligations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raynor v. MOORES MACHINE SHOP, LLC

Joseph Lynn Raynor was electrocuted while welding on the premises of Moores Machine Shop, LLC. His parents, Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, individually and as representatives of Joseph’s estate, sued Moores for negligence and gross negligence. Moores moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (arguing Joseph was an employee) or Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95 (arguing Joseph was an independent contractor). The trial court granted summary judgment for Moores. On appeal, the Raynors contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Joseph's employment status, precluding summary judgment under both grounds. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkplace FatalityElectrocution AccidentRight of Control TestTexas Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,234 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