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

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Steuben

CSEA appealed an order that denied confirmation of an arbitrator's award and granted the County's cross-petition to vacate it. The dispute stemmed from a public employment contract concerning mileage reimbursement between CSEA and the County. The County changed its mileage policy, prompting CSEA to file a grievance, arguing that a 'past practice' had effectively modified the contract's terms. The arbitrator agreed with CSEA, but the Special Term vacated the award, ruling that the contract's language on mileage reimbursement was clear and unambiguous, rendering any past practice irrelevant. The appellate court affirmed the Special Term's decision, concluding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by relying on matters outside the explicit contractual agreement, thereby creating a new contract for the parties.

ArbitrationPublic Employment ContractMileage ReimbursementPast PracticeContract InterpretationArbitrator's PowerVacatur of AwardCPLR Article 75Collective Bargaining AgreementUnambiguous Contract Terms
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apex Industrial Construction Corp. v. Village of Lake George

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract and awarding damages to the defendant village on its counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed the village breached the contract by failing to provide a clear construction site, due to a plumbers' union picket line protesting the village's award of plumbing work to a nonunion employer. The court found that the picketing was an act of a third party, not attributable to the village, and that the village lawfully awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, even if nonunion. Therefore, the plaintiff's abandonment of the job constituted a breach of contract, justifying the damages awarded to the village. The judgment was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawLabor DisputePicket LineNonunion EmployerMunicipal ContractsLowest Responsible BidderContract AbandonmentDamages AwardedThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Ass'n of Plastic & Fibre Workers, Local No. 1 v. Spaulding Fibre Co.

This case involves an action for reformation of a contract where the Special Term correctly dismissed the defendant's affirmative defenses of final resolution of issues and res judicata. These defenses were based on a prior arbitration award. However, the arbitrator's written decision explicitly stated that arbitration was not the appropriate forum for contract reformation, deeming it a judicial function. Consequently, the action for contract reformation could not be precluded by the arbitration award because the arbitrator did not address the specific issue. The court referenced established law that res judicata applies only to issues actually resolved by arbitration, and an award is not a bar to a subsequent action if the issue was not passed upon by the arbitrators. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order.

Contract ReformationRes JudicataArbitration AwardScope of ArbitrationJudicial FunctionAffirmative DefensesContract InterpretationAppeal from OrderErie CountyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

OMG, LP v. Heritage Auctions, Inc.

This case centers on a dispute over an arbitration award between Plaintiffs OMG (OMG, L.P., John Gallo, and Greg Martin) and Defendant Heritage Auctions, Inc. OMG sought to vacate the award, while Heritage aimed to confirm it. The core legal question was whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by determining the *existence* of the underlying contracts (Asset Purchase Agreement and Consulting Agreement) due to a lack of "meeting of the minds," rather than solely their *validity*. The Magistrate Judge recommended vacating the award, concluding that contract formation issues are reserved for judicial determination. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay adopted these findings, vacating the arbitration award and remanding the case to the American Arbitration Association for further proceedings, agreeing that the arbitrator overstepped his authority by ruling on contract existence.

ArbitrationContract LawFederal Arbitration ActContract FormationArbitrator AuthorityVacaturRemandMeeting of the MindsJudicial ReviewFifth Circuit Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. 22-0889
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2024

Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. v. Theodis Bruce, Maria Bruce, Virginia Cordova, Sergio Cordova, Victor Corral, Jose Dominguez, Magdalena Juarez, Bernarda Lopez, Elisa Negrete, Maria Reyes, Luis Velazquez, Jose Valdez, Antonio Salgado, Maria Salgado, and Iris Jordan

In a construction dispute, homeowners sued Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence, seeking actual and exemplary damages. The jury awarded exemplary damages, but its verdict was not unanimous. The trial court excluded exemplary damages, citing Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003, which requires jury unanimity for such awards. The court of appeals reversed, suggesting that unanimity could be implied and that the defendant had waived its objection. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals, holding that the burden to secure a unanimous verdict for exemplary damages rests with the claimant. The Court emphasized that unanimity cannot be implied or deemed in the face of a divided verdict and reinstated the trial court's judgment excluding exemplary damages.

Exemplary DamagesJury UnanimityCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofTexas Supreme CourtConstruction DisputeGross NegligenceDivided VerdictJury Instructions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Universal Metal Products Co. & United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America

This case involves motions to modify and confirm, and to vacate, an arbitration award concerning a dispute between a union and an employer. The core issue stems from a 1942 collective labor agreement regarding a scheduled wage increase, which the employer claimed to have paid in advance. The arbitrator based the award solely on contract interpretation, neglecting crucial questions of fact related to contract performance and employee waiver. The court ruled that the arbitration was imperfectly executed due to this omission of factual inquiry. Therefore, the motion to confirm the award was denied, the motion to vacate was granted, and the controversy was directed to the New York State Board of Mediation for further arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeContract InterpretationLabor LawArbitration Award VacatedArbitration Award Confirmation DeniedFactual DisputeArbitrator PowersJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

This case involves an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award, which was subsequently reversed and remanded to Special Term. The court mandated a hearing to determine two critical aspects: first, whether the arbitration contract was formed between the petitioner labor union and the respondent as an individual or on behalf of a corporate entity; and second, whether the respondent received due notice of the arbitration. The decision emphasizes that the court, not the arbitrator, must decide on the existence of a valid contract and proper notice. Furthermore, even if these conditions are met, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator to clarify the ambiguity of the award, which directed payments to unidentified individuals, rendering it imperfectly executed and not a final and definite award as required by the Civil Practice Act.

ArbitrationContract ExistenceNotice RequirementAmbiguity in AwardRemandSpecial TermLabor UnionRespondent IdentityCivil Practice ActProcedural Reversal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,699 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