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

Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.

Hector Rosado, an employee of Comet Fibers, Inc., was injured by a garnett machine manufactured by Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. Rosado sued Proctor, which then filed a third-party action against Comet, seeking indemnification for Comet's failure to install safety devices as per their sales contract. The trial court and Appellate Division dismissed Proctor's indemnification claim, leading to Proctor's appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a manufacturer is primarily responsible for ensuring product safety and cannot shift this nondelegable duty to the purchaser through contractual boilerplate. The decision clarifies that implied indemnification is not applicable in strict products liability actions when the manufacturer is a wrongdoer and not merely vicariously liable.

Products LiabilityIndemnificationContributionStrict LiabilitySafety DevicesManufacturer LiabilityPurchaser ResponsibilityContractual ObligationImplied IndemnityGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Proctor v. Allsups Convenience Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs initially filed this case alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Allsup's Convenience Stores conspired to avoid paying overtime to hourly employees by requiring them to work off the clock. The court had previously granted class certification, and over 1,000 employees opted into the lawsuit. Following discovery, the Defendants filed a Motion for Decertification, arguing that the plaintiffs were not "similarly situated." The court examined the standard for decertification, considering factual and employment settings, individual defenses, and procedural fairness. Concluding that there was no uniform policy causing off-the-clock work and significant factual disparities existed among the plaintiffs' claims, the court granted the motion to decertify the class. All opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, with only the claims of the named plaintiffs, Lesa Proctor and Duncan Proctor, remaining.

FLSAClass ActionDecertificationOff-the-Clock WorkOvertime PaySimilarly SituatedWage and HourJudicial EconomyManageabilityFactual Disparities
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandhu v. Sandhu

Justice Weinstein dissents in part and concurs in part regarding a divorce judgment. The memorandum argues that the evidence presented by the plaintiff husband for cruel and inhuman treatment was insufficient to warrant a divorce in his favor, especially considering the 15-year marriage, the wife's financial dependency, and acts of provocation by the husband and his mother. Conversely, the justice finds that the defendant wife presented sufficient evidence of the husband's cruel and inhuman treatment, including physical assaults and verbal abuse, entitling her to a divorce on her counterclaim. The memorandum recommends modifying the judgment to grant the wife's counterclaim for divorce and remitting the matter for alimony proceedings. It concurs with the trial court's decision to award custody of the three minor children to the husband, based on a psychiatric social worker's recommendation and the children's expressed preference, while ensuring liberal visitation rights for the wife.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentAlimonyChild CustodyDomestic Relations LawMarital MisconductProvocationAppellate ReviewSpousal SupportLong-Term Marriage
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1988

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

The plaintiff commenced a divorce action against the defendant on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The Supreme Court granted the divorce, awarded maintenance, child support, and equitable distribution of marital property. The defendant appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence for cruel and inhuman treatment and the excessiveness of the financial awards. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the divorce and deeming the maintenance and child support awards reasonable. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the valuation of retirement benefits.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceChild SupportAppellate ReviewCredibilityEvidence SufficiencyDomestic Relations Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Greene

Thurmon B. Greene appealed a Chancery Court decree dismissing his divorce suit against Rose C. Greene. The Chancellor dismissed the suit primarily on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction due to complainant's non-residence in Shelby County, Tennessee, and failure to prove cruel and inhuman treatment or desertion. The appellate court disagreed with the Chancellor's finding on jurisdiction, holding that Greene had established domicile in Memphis, Tennessee. The court also sustained the complainant's objection to a $50 fee for the amicus curiae, deeming it an abuse of discretion given the presence of a Divorce Proctor. The appellate court reversed the Chancellor's ruling on jurisdiction and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including obtaining the defendant's testimony and additional corroborating evidence for the grounds of divorce.

DivorceDomicileJurisdictionRemandCruel and Inhuman TreatmentDesertionAmicus CuriaeDivorce ProctorAppellate ProcedureEvidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1995

Gray v. Gray

Plaintiff commenced an action for divorce in October 1993, alleging cruel and inhuman treatment against the defendant. The parties were married in October 1986 and had no children. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff a divorce. The defendant subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. The plaintiff's testimony regarding the defendant's change in religious beliefs and subsequent conduct, supported by a certified social worker, was deemed sufficient to establish cruel and inhuman treatment.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentMarital MisconductAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPreponderance of EvidenceTestimonyReligious BeliefsCo-habitationMental Well-being
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1990

Schlachet v. Schlachet

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment of divorce entered on December 3, 1990. The case involved a couple married in 1977 with one child, who separated in 1985. The plaintiff, a licensed social worker, reduced her practice to be the primary caretaker and assist the defendant, a practicing psychologist, in his practice. The court properly valued the marital appreciation of the defendant's practice, awarding the plaintiff 50% of this value. The defendant was also directed to pay child support, a significant portion of the child's medical and educational expenses, maintenance to the plaintiff for four years, and a portion of her counsel fees, with the appellate court finding the defendant's arguments unpersuasive.

DivorceEquitable DistributionChild CustodySpousal SupportChild SupportAttorney's FeesProfessional Practice ValuationMarital AssetsAppreciation of PracticeHomemaker Contribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Ellis

This is an appeal by Mary Helen Marshall Ellis, the wife, from a Shelby County Circuit Court decree granting a divorce to Henry C. Ellis, the husband, on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife raised numerous assignments of error, including the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding the husband's income, the inadmissibility of certain expert and investigative reports, and the disallowance of psychiatrist Dr. Mark Ivie's testimony due to patient privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the income evidence exclusion was harmless error, and upholding the psychiatrist-patient privilege even when a spouse was present during consultations. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the finding that the wife was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment and that the defense of recrimination was properly considered.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentSpousal SupportChild CustodyEvidentiary RulingsPsychiatrist-Patient PrivilegeMarital PrivilegeRecrimination DefenseHarmless ErrorAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2009

Miceli v. Miceli

In a divorce action, the defendant appealed several aspects of a judgment, including the distribution of assets, attorney's fees, and maintenance. The appellate court modified the original judgment, reclassifying the plaintiff's life insurance policy as marital property, entitling the defendant to 50% of its cash surrender value. The court also determined the defendant's North Fork savings account to be her separate property, overturning the original award to the plaintiff. Additionally, the allocation of a personal injury settlement was adjusted to 60% for the plaintiff and 40% for the defendant, and the plaintiff's maintenance obligation to the defendant was increased from $125 to $500 per month, made retroactive to May 28, 2004. The plaintiff was further directed to maintain life insurance for the defendant's benefit to secure the maintenance payments.

DivorceAncillary ReliefMarital PropertySeparate PropertyLife InsuranceSavings AccountPersonal Injury SettlementMaintenanceRetroactive MaintenanceEquitable Distribution
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 443 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