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

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

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
Feb 28, 1992

Fonar Corp. v. Deccaid Services., Inc.

The court amended its findings regarding a contempt proceeding and a preliminary injunction. It found defendants Deccaid Services, Inc., Peter Kim, Louis Treglia, Stephen Steckler, and Equi Med Leasing, Inc. in knowing and willful contempt of a prior Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 2, 1991. The defendants were prohibited from copying, reproducing, selling, or using Fonar's copyrighted 'Maintenance Software' and 'Schematics' for Beta 3000 and Beta 3000M MRI Scanners. As a result of the contempt, the plaintiff, Fonar Corporation, was awarded attorneys' fees, and the court issued further prohibitions against the defendants, including David Smith and Medical Funding of America, Inc., from servicing Fonar MRI Scanners using the protected software or schematics, and from forming new business entities to circumvent the order. Additionally, the court granted a preliminary injunction, affirming irreparable harm to Fonar due to copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation, and the likelihood of success on the merits, thereby enjoining defendants from further violations.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionSoftware ProtectionTrade SecretsMRI TechnologyIntellectual PropertyIrreparable HarmAttorneys' FeesWillful Violation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insta-Bulk, Inc. v. Powertex Inc.

Powertex, Inc. sought to hold Insta-Bulk, Inc. in contempt for allegedly violating a 1983 injunction by selling patented products outside of agreed-upon territories. Insta-Bulk moved to dismiss the contempt motion, arguing the injunction was inapplicable due to an existing license agreement, or alternatively, to stay proceedings pending arbitration as per the license agreement. The District Court denied Insta-Bulk's motion to dismiss the contempt application, stating that the applicability of the injunction depended on whether Insta-Bulk's actions were authorized by the license. However, the court granted Insta-Bulk's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending arbitration, concluding that the dispute over sales authorization fell under the license agreement's arbitration clause. The court also clarified that arbitration obligations can survive contract expiration, citing Supreme Court precedent.

ContemptInjunctionPatent InfringementLicense AgreementArbitrationStay of ProceedingsContract DisputeFederal CourtSettlement AgreementJurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1978

Israeli v. Fatima Cab Corp.

The Fatima Cab Corp. appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 15, 1978, which found it in contempt for failing to comply with an arbitrator's award directing no-fault payments to the petitioner. The appellate court reversed the contempt judgment, citing the record's lack of basis for the contempt finding and absence of findings regarding willful actions by Fatima Cab Corp. The proceeding was remitted to Special Term for a new hearing to address these deficiencies, specifically considering CPLR enforcement provisions for money judgments or fiduciary duties.

Contempt of CourtNo-Fault PaymentsArbitrator's AwardJudgment EnforcementCPLRWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWillful DefaultAppellate ReviewKings CountyRemand
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Building Service 32B-J Pension Fund v. Vanderveer Estates Holding, LLC

Plaintiff Funds moved for reconsideration of a previous opinion and to hold the defendant Vanderveer in contempt. The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that Vanderveer was bound by the 1997 Agreement's 'Evergreen Clause' to continue contributions after April 20, 2000, as the subsequent 2000 Agreement did not bind Vanderveer and no cancellation notice was filed. The motion to hold Vanderveer in contempt for willfully delaying the filing of a $75,000 bond was also granted, with Vanderveer ordered to pay the Funds' costs and attorney's fees. However, the contempt motion was denied as to Abraham Weider, Vanderveer's principal, as he was not a named party.

Collective Bargaining AgreementEvergreen ClauseMotion for ReconsiderationContempt MotionEmployer ContributionsPension FundsAnnuity FundsLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)Local Civil Rule 6.3
References
22
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
Showing 1-10 of 221 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