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

Skolny v. Hillman

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of men's and boys' clothing, filed an action against Sidney Hillman, Jacob S. Potofsky, and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, alleging an unlawful conspiracy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from instigating strikes, picketing, and coercing employees to unionize, claiming these actions violated their 'open shop' employment contracts. Defendants denied the charges, arguing their actions were lawful labor practices and challenged the complaint's legal sufficiency. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming that such alleged acts constituted a common law conspiracy and warranted injunctive relief.

Labor disputeInjunctionConspiracyPicketingUnionizationEmployment contractsUnincorporated associationsPendente liteCommon law conspiracyOpen shop
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2000

Maher v. Herrman

The Maher Law Firm and Constance Maher sued former employee Regina Elkins for alleged loan repayment, slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Maher also sued Elkins's new employers, David E. Herrman and Herrman & Herrman, L.L.P., for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy claims. Maher appealed, arguing errors related to the statute of limitations, misidentification of the plaintiff, fraudulent concealment, and the scope of the summary judgment motion regarding the conspiracy claim. The appellate court found errors in the summary judgment regarding the conspiracy claim and the application of the misidentification doctrine to plaintiffs, reversing and remanding those claims, while affirming the dismissal of the loan claims.

Summary Judgment AppealSlanderIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyStatute of LimitationsMisidentification DoctrineMisnomerRelation-Back DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePleading Errors
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston

This antitrust case involves Affiliated Capital's claim against Gulf Coast, the City of Houston, and Mayor Jim McConn for an alleged conspiracy to limit competition for cable television franchises in Houston. The jury found that a conspiracy existed but that the boundary agreements, central to the plaintiff's primary theory, were not part of an illegal conspiracy. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the found conspiracy and the plaintiff's failure to secure a franchise, outside of the boundary agreements. The court also denied the plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief due to a lack of standing, and analyzed the inapplicability of Noerr-Pennington immunity and state action exemption to the defendants' conduct, had the plaintiff prevailed on the causation issue.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCable Television FranchisesMunicipal LawConspiracyNoerr-Pennington DoctrineState Action ExemptionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictCausationInjunctive Relief
References
31
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2010

United States v. Batista

Luis Batista, a former NYPD detective, was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, bank fraud, and obstruction of justice. This opinion and order details the court's reasoning for his sentencing. The court denied Batista's request for a mitigating role reduction, finding his contributions to the narcotics conspiracy substantial and unique. It also applied a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice due to materially false statements made to the court and perjury during trial. Furthermore, a two-point enhancement for possession of a firearm in furtherance of the narcotics conspiracy was warranted, as it was reasonably foreseeable given Batista's background and the nature of the large-scale operation. Consequently, Batista was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and supervised release.

Sentencing GuidelinesPerjuryObstruction of JusticeFirearm EnhancementNarcotics ConspiracyBank FraudMitigating Role AdjustmentPolice DetectiveWiretap EvidencePresentence Report
References
42
Case No. 81 Civ. 1891 (RO)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 1983

State of NY v. Dairylea Co-Op. Inc.

The State of New York sued numerous milk wholesalers and their officers/salesmen, alleging a horizontal conspiracy to fix milk prices and a vertical conspiracy with retailers in the eleven-county downstate area of New York. Defendants moved to dismiss the parens patriae claim, brought on behalf of milk consumers, citing the Illinois Brick doctrine which generally prohibits indirect purchasers from recovering treble damages under the Clayton Act. The court dismissed this claim, requiring the Attorney General to name alleged retailer co-conspirators if repleading. Additionally, the court dismissed the complaint against individual defendants due to a lack of specificity in pleading their individual involvement in the alleged conspiracy. All other motions for relief sought by defendants were denied without prejudice.

AntitrustPrice FixingHorizontal ConspiracyVertical ConspiracyMilk IndustryWholesalersRetailersParens PatriaeIndirect PurchasersIllinois Brick Doctrine
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaudhuri v. Green

Plaintiff, Aloke Chaudhuri, filed a lawsuit alleging federal constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy against Deputy Sheriffs Green and Halpin, Sheriff Povero, and the County of Ontario, following his arrest on June 2, 2006. The claims stemmed from alleged domestic incidents with his wife, Shukla Chaudhuri, whose charges against him were later dismissed. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that probable cause existed for the plaintiff's arrest for all charges and that the officers acted reasonably. Additionally, municipal liability claims and conspiracy claims were dismissed, the latter due to lack of class-based animus and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The Court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionConspiracySummary JudgmentProbable CauseMunicipal LiabilityIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2013

New York District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde

Plaintiffs, jointly-administered employee benefit plans (Funds), brought an action against Defendants Joseph Olivieri, EMB Contracting Corp., Michael Batalias, Elisavet Batalias, and Michael Brennan, alleging civil RICO and RICO conspiracy statutes violations, breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, and New York common law fraud. The lawsuit stems from a racketeering conspiracy where defendants allegedly embezzled funds by bribing labor representatives and avoiding required contributions. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and a motion to strike, raising arguments concerning the statute of limitations, satisfaction of judgment, and failure to state a claim for RICO conspiracy or common law fraud. The court denied all motions, concluding that the statute of limitations could be equitably tolled due to fraudulent concealment and that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded their claims.

RICOERISAFraudConspiracyMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit PlansLabor Racketeering
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Osipova v. Dinkins

Plaintiff Nonna Osipova brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Juliette Clarke, her landlord, alleging a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights due to an illegal search and seizure. The dispute arose after Osipova repeatedly turned off the water supply to her building, leading to a leak into the apartment below, and subsequently refused entry to a plumber accompanied by a police officer. Osipova claimed a conspiracy between Clarke and the police officer to unlawfully enter her apartment. The Court had previously dismissed claims against other defendants and found the police officer immune. Clarke moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for a conspiracy. The Court granted Clarke's motion for summary judgment on the federal claim, finding no factual basis to support a conspiracy, and dismissed the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil RightsFourth AmendmentIllegal Search and SeizureSummary JudgmentLandlord-Tenant DisputeState ActionConspiracy ClaimQualified ImmunityFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2010

Bartels v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF LLOYD

Plaintiff Jeffrey Bartels sued the Village of Lloyd Harbor and several officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment free speech retaliation and conspiracy. Plaintiff claimed defendants retaliated against him for voicing complaints at public meetings, writing letters, and calling officials. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff could not prove improper motivation or a chilling effect on his speech. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding retaliatory motives and the chilling effect of defendants' actions, specifically concerning a harassment charge, and therefore denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim. However, the court granted summary judgment for defendants on the conspiracy claim, applying the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine because all individual defendants were employees of the Village acting within their official duties.

First AmendmentFree SpeechRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentConspiracy ClaimQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductHarassment ChargePublic Officials
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 403 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