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

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griggs v. Coca-Cola Employees' Credit Union

Olive D. Griggs, a manager for Coca-Cola Employees’ Credit Union since 1974, alleged she was retaliatorily discharged for reporting illegal activities related to irregularities in the Credit Union's computer system conversion. Griggs filed suit under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304. The Credit Union moved for summary judgment, arguing Griggs could not meet the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim. The Court, presided over by District Judge Collier, granted summary judgment to the Credit Union on the statutory claim, finding Griggs could not demonstrate an exclusive causal relationship between her reporting activities and her termination, nor a contemporaneous fear of dismissal. The Court reserved ruling on whether a concurrent common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge exists, inviting further briefing.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Public Protection ActWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawIllegal Activities ReportingCredit Union ManagementStatutory InterpretationCommon LawCausation
References
23
Case No. 08-17-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Jodi Strobach v. WesTex Community Credit Union

Jodi Strobach appealed a summary judgment dismissing her lawsuit against WesTex Community Credit Union. Strobach claimed breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and deceptive trade practices after WesTex released funds from her account based on a garnishment judgment against her father, not her, and without proper notice to Strobach. The appellate court agreed that a question of fact remained regarding whether WesTex breached its contractual duty of ordinary care to Strobach. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment on Strobach's claims of negligence, fraud, and violations of the DTPA, citing the economic loss rule and lack of evidence for fraud.

GarnishmentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractNegligenceFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActDue ProcessNoticeVoid JudgmentOrdinary Care
References
115
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thoms v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Thoms)

Kashima Thoms, a Chapter 7 debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the discharge of her substantial student loan obligations totaling $90,948.58, citing "undue hardship" under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) became the primary defendant, administering all of Thoms's student loans. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court applied the Second Circuit's stringent three-part Brunner test, which requires demonstrating an inability to maintain a minimal living standard, persistence of this hardship, and good faith repayment efforts. The Court found that Thoms, earning $48,000 annually, had sufficient disposable income, and her financial prospects were likely to improve, particularly with potential changes in childcare expenses and family living arrangements. Crucially, Thoms had made only minimal payments years prior and failed to utilize available loan restructuring options, thereby failing to prove good faith. Consequently, the Court ruled that Thoms did not establish undue hardship, denying the discharge of her student loan debts.

Bankruptcy LawStudent Loan DischargeUndue Hardship DoctrineBrunner TestChapter 7 BankruptcyAdversary ProceedingFinancial DistressRepayment EffortsFederal Student LoansDebtor-Creditor Law
References
4
Case No. 04-19-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2021

San Antonio Federal Credit Union v. Mario R. Cantu

This case involves an appeal by San Antonio Federal Credit Union (SACU) against a final judgment in favor of Mario R. Cantu, stemming from a breach of contract dispute. The core of the dispute revolved around two general services agreements (GSAs) concerning Cantu's janitorial services for SACU. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Cantu, ruling that the November GSA was the only valid and enforceable contract, and that its termination clauses required cause and specific notice periods. SACU appealed, challenging Galland's authority to execute the November GSA and the enforceability of the December GSA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Galland had apparent authority and that the December GSA was unenforceable due to indefiniteness and lack of proper execution.

Contract LawBreach of ContractApparent AuthorityContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentJury InstructionsMaterial BreachService AgreementTexas Appellate CourtTermination Clause
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NECA Ins., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

Plaintiff NIL Insurance Ltd., a reinsurance company, initiated a diversity action against National Union Fire Insurance Co. and Buchanan Management Company. NIL sought recovery for moneys paid in connection with a personal injury settlement by National Union and punitive damages, alleging negligence, bad faith, and breach of contract related to settlement discussions and payment. National Union and Buchanan moved to compel arbitration of these claims. The court granted National Union's motion, finding that the reinsurance agreement's arbitration clause broadly covered all disputes, including those concerning negligence and recklessness, which could be established within arbitration. The action was dismissed without prejudice, pending the outcome of the arbitration.

ReinsuranceArbitration ClauseContract InterpretationNegligence ClaimsBad FaithBreach of ContractSettlement DisputesFederal JurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationDismissal Without Prejudice
References
6
Case No. 10-0121
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2013

the Finance Commission of Texas, the Credit Union Commission of Texas, and Texas Bankers Association v. Valerie Norwood, Elise Shows, Maryann Robles-Valdez, Bobby Martin, Pamela Cooper, and Carlos Rivas

Justice Johnson dissents from parts III and IV of the Court's opinion and its judgment. The case involves six homeowners who sued the Finance and Credit Union Commissions' interpretations of home equity lending provisions. The homeowners challenged seventeen interpretations, but the dissenting justice argues they failed to allege specific injuries or demonstrate standing. The justice contends that the Court's decision constitutes an advisory opinion and that the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow the homeowners an opportunity to replead and establish jurisdiction, aligning with constitutional separation of powers and open courts provisions which preclude advisory opinions.

Texas Supreme CourtDissentStandingJurisdictionHome Equity LoansAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory Judgments ActAdvisory OpinionConstitutional LawSeparation of Powers
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
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. M2002-02116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Overnite Transportation v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

This case originated from a labor dispute in October 1999, involving Overnite Transportation Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 480. Overnite sought injunctive relief against the union for alleged violence during a strike at its Nashville facility and later amended its complaint to include claims for civil contempt due to injunction violations and intentional interference with business relations. The trial court dismissed the civil contempt petition as moot and the intentional interference claim for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the dismissal of the civil contempt petition, holding that Overnite could seek compensatory damages for the union's contemptuous conduct, even if the conduct had ceased. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional interference claim, finding that Overnite's complaint failed to meet the necessary pleading requirements.

Labor DisputeInjunction ViolationCivil ContemptCompensatory DamagesIntentional InterferenceBusiness RelationsAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineInjunction BondRule 65.05(1)
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,342 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