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. ADJ8128265
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

WILLIAM GARNETT vs. DALLAS BASKETBALL LTD (DALLAS MAVERICKS), INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA/ACE USA, INDIANA PACERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a decision denying jurisdiction over applicant William Garnett's cumulative trauma claim. Garnett, a former professional basketball player, argued he sustained injury while playing for the Dallas Mavericks and Indiana Pacers, with over 20 games played in California. However, the WCAB found Garnett's contacts with California insufficient, deeming the 22 games played as de minimis based on the *Johnson* precedent. The Board concluded that constitutional due process required a sufficient relationship between the injury and the state, which was not met here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDe MinimisJohnsonMcKinleyProfessional AthleteNBAIndiana PacersDallas Mavericks
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2008

Dallas v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

Plaintiffs Westley Dallas, a special needs child, and his father, William Dallas, sued the Roosevelt Union Free School District alleging failures in providing an adequate Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for Westley and also for mistreatment and assault by another student. The complaint brought eleven counts, including state law tort claims and federal and state constitutional and statutory claims related to special education. The District filed a motion to dismiss, challenging personal jurisdiction and asserting the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies for their education-related claims. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding service proper, but granted the dismissal of the education-related claims (Counts Six through Eleven) due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law tort claims (Counts One through Five) and dismissed them without prejudice, subsequently closing the case.

Special EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionIndividualized Education Plan (IEP)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4Rehabilitation Act
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Madeline M. (Dallas M.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's finding that the mother, Dallas M., neglected her child, Madeline M. The decision was based on a preponderance of the evidence showing the mother suffers from untreated mental illness, including bipolar disorder, with a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and a failure to comply with mental health treatment recommendations. The court found her continued lack of insight into her condition impaired her ability to care for the child, posing an imminent risk of harm. A negative inference was drawn against the mother for her failure to testify at the hearing.

Child NeglectParental Mental IllnessBipolar DisorderAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionPreponderance of EvidenceNegative InferenceParental FitnessRisk of Harm to ChildChild Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koutrakos v. Long Island College Hospital

This case addresses the distribution of funds from a wrongful death settlement, specifically concerning a workmen's compensation lien and plaintiff's attorney fees. The court examined whether Workmen's Compensation Law § 29, subd. 1, which mandates full reimbursement of the carrier's lien without contribution to attorney fees, is constitutional. It found the provision unconstitutional, arguing it unjustly burdens the plaintiff—a widow with infant children—by forcing her to cover legal costs for the carrier's benefit. The court concluded that such a statutory requirement violates due process and equal protection clauses of both Federal and New York State Constitutions, and abrogates the constitutional right to a full recovery for death-related injuries.

Wrongful DeathWorkmen's Compensation LienAttorney's FeesConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionUnjust EnrichmentSubrogationSettlement DisbursementJudiciary Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Livery Owners Coalition v. State Insurance Fund

This case addresses the constitutionality of a Workers’ Compensation Law amendment defining livery car base owners as employers of independent owner-operators for workers' compensation purposes. The Livery Owners Coalition sought an injunction against the State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board to prevent enforcement of this statute, while the defendants sought dismissal and a declaration of the statute's constitutionality. The court, deferring to the agencies' interpretation, found their stance reasonable in expanding workers' compensation coverage and ensuring operator protection. It also determined that the statute and its application have a rational basis and do not violate equal protection. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied, and the defendants' application to dismiss the complaint and declare the statute constitutional was granted.

ConstitutionalityWorkers' Compensation LawLivery IndustryIndependent ContractorsEmployer DefinitionStatutory InterpretationEqual ProtectionInjunctionRational Basis ReviewState Agencies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 3,097 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