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

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diabo v. Delisle

Shaynah J. Diabo (mother) initiated a federal action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention seeking the return of her minor child from the child's father and paternal grandparents. A previous April 2006 Order mandated the child's return to the mother in Canada and prohibited parties from seeking further custody orders. When the father subsequently filed a custody proceeding in Onondaga County Family Court, the mother sought a permanent injunction in federal court. The court granted the permanent injunction, finding that the state court action was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' and 'relitigation' exceptions. The federal court held that its retained jurisdiction and prior judgment on the child's best interest and habitual residence in Canada precluded relitigation of these issues in state court. The court also dismissed George M. Raus as a respondent and vacated an earlier Access Agreement, while directing the father to arrange visitation through a mediation center in Canada.

Child AbductionICARAHague ConventionPermanent InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Court InterferenceFamily Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AFA Protective Systems v. Local Union No. 3

This case concerns an action brought by AFA, a company installing and servicing alarm systems, against a defendant union, seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged acts during a labor dispute. The dispute arose from stalled negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, culminating in a strike in February 1972. AFA accused the union of disorderly picketing, individual acts of harassment against non-striking employees, and two sit-ins at AFA's premises. The union moved to dismiss the complaint, citing federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act. The court, after reviewing the evidence and considering an NLRB determination that refused to issue a complaint against the union for related charges, concluded that the incidents did not warrant State court jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was granted.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesFederal Pre-emptionNational Labor Relations ActPicketingSit-down StrikeJurisdictionCollective BargainingNLRB
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silverman v. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

The National Labor Relations Board ("Board") sought a preliminary injunction against Local 3 under Section 10(Z) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging illegal secondary boycott activity. The Board contended that Local 3 caused Central Financial Systems, Inc. ("CFS") to discharge an employee for working alongside British Telecom ("BT") employees, in violation of the Act. Local 3 denied attempting to prevent CFS from working with BT, only objecting to its members working "side by side" with BT employees. The court, presided over by District Judge KRAM, denied the Board's petition, concluding that the injunctive relief was not "just and proper" due to the Board's unexplained delay of over three months in seeking the injunction. The court emphasized that such a delay undermined the urgency required for extraordinary equitable relief and indicated a reduced need for speedy action, thereby denying the petition without reaching the merits of the unfair labor practice claim.

Preliminary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeEquitable ReliefLachesDelay in Seeking InjunctionPublic InterestLabor LawUnion Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1990

Bergin v. Peplowski

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a common driveway. Despite the injunction, defendants continued to obstruct access. Plaintiff moved to hold defendants in contempt, which the Supreme Court granted, imposing a fine and counsel fees. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the contempt finding, concluding that the preliminary injunction's mandate was clear and defendants' disobedience was proven. The court rejected defendants' arguments regarding the injunction's precision, its breadth, and the necessity of a hearing, finding sufficient factual basis in the submitted papers.

Contempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionCommon DrivewayObstructionCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewCourt Order EnforcementProperty RightsJudiciary LawMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. NLRB v. P & W ELEC., INC.

The Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, filed an application for a temporary injunction against Respondent P & W Electric, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, alleging unfair labor practices. The court, presided over by Judge Gershon in the Eastern District of New York, found reasonable cause to believe that P & W Electric had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act by discharging employees Michael Finn, Dane Ault, and John Kwarta due to their union organizing activities. The court determined that the requested injunctive relief, which included a cease and desist order and interim reinstatement of the three employees, was "just and proper" to preserve the pre-unfair labor practice status quo and prevent irreparable harm to the union's organizational efforts. Despite the respondent's arguments regarding employee misconduct, potential financial penalties, and alleged delay by the NLRB, the court found these insufficient to outweigh the need for injunction. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction was granted, ordering P & W Electric to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate the named employees, and post the court's order.

Temporary InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingEmployee ReinstatementCease and Desist OrderSection 10(j)Reasonable CauseJust and Proper ReliefLabor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamestown Sterling Corp. v. United Furniture Workers of America

The case involves Jamestown Sterling Corporation and nonunion employees seeking an injunction against the United Furniture Workers of America union to stop picketing during a labor dispute. Plaintiffs alleged illegal picketing, denial of access to the plant, and incidents of violence, asserting that public officers failed to provide adequate protection. Judge William B. Lawless found that while some scuffles occurred, the plaintiffs failed to prove systematic unlawful acts or the inability of law enforcement to control the situation. The court concluded that the picketing was largely peaceful, with isolated incidents not warranting an injunction. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was denied.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionUnionEmployer RightsEmployee RightsFreedom of SpeechLabor LawNew York Civil Practice ActIndustrial Relations
References
9
Case No. 99 Civ. 3594
Regular Panel Decision

Finch ex rel. Moe v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Plaintiffs Barbara Finch, Carol Jordan, and Barbara Ortiz allege violations of their Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to extensive delays in administrative hearings concerning 'indicated' reports of child abuse/maltreatment in New York's Statewide Central Register (SCR). They seek money damages and injunctive relief against the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), Commissioner John A. Johnson, and Director Dave R. Peters. The court dismissed claims against OCFS and for money damages against individual defendants due to Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity, respectively. However, claims for prospective injunctive relief against the individual defendants were allowed to proceed. The court determined that delays of 12-23 months in administrative hearings could constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of a fundamental liberty interest, but found the individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity for damages as this specific violation was not clearly established law. The State defendants' motion to strike references to race and ethnicity was granted.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentChild Abuse MaltreatmentAdministrative HearingsStatewide Central Register (SCR)New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS)Injunctive ReliefQualified ImmunityEleventh AmendmentLiberty Interest
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 1975

Sable v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 6, 1975, which denied a petitioner's application for a temporary injunction. The injunction sought to prevent the layoff of certain employees by the respondents. The layoffs were proposed due to economic factors and were conducted according to a collective bargaining agreement based on seniority. Employees over 40, through their union, alleged age discrimination, prompting the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights to seek the injunction. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that legal remedies were not inadequate, and there was no apparent irreparable injury. The decision also noted the unlikelihood of a probable cause finding by the State Division of Human Rights, given the layoffs were pursuant to a seniority-based collective bargaining agreement.

Age DiscriminationLayoffsTemporary InjunctionSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementHuman Rights DivisionEconomic LayoffsIrreparable InjuryLegal RemediesAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2001

Smith v. Potter

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to compel the United States Postal Service (USPS) to shut down and decontaminate the Morgan Processing and Distribution Center and to test all related postal facilities for anthrax due to contamination. The Court denied the application to shut down the Morgan Facility, finding that plaintiffs failed to meet the high standard for a mandatory injunction and that the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the defendant. The Court deferred to the scientific judgment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which concluded that the anthrax contamination no longer posed an imminent and substantial public health risk. However, the Court directed the USPS to immediately test the James A. Farley Station for anthrax and to conduct extermination services for a rodent problem at the Morgan Facility. The Court also ruled that sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs' public nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief.

AnthraxBioterrorismPreliminary InjunctionRCRAPublic HealthCDCSovereign ImmunityPostal ServiceDecontaminationEnvironmental Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,548 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