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
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seelig v. Koehler

This is a dissenting opinion regarding the random drug testing of correction officers. Justice Milonas argues that the majority decision to allow such testing without reasonable suspicion oversteps the boundaries set by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The dissent emphasizes that New York State law requires more stringent conditions for random searches, particularly concerning privacy interests and government justification. Milonas distinguishes correction officers from other law enforcement personnel, highlighting their reduced exposure to drugs within a controlled environment, which lessens the justification for random testing. The opinion concludes that there is no legal precedent in New York for the proposed blanket random drug-screening program for all correction officers.

Drug TestingUrinalysisFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsPublic EmployeesCorrectional OfficersPolice PowersConstitutional ScrutinyReasonable SuspicionNew York Court of Appeals Precedent
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elgin v. Bryant

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor from a Chancery Court decree in Davidson County, where Elgin Drug Store, Inc. recovered unemployment compensation paid under protest. The core dispute centers on whether Mrs. Nancy Y. Elgin, the corporation's uncompensated secretary and sole stock owner, should be counted as an "employee" under the Unemployment Compensation statute. If Mrs. Elgin were considered an employee, the corporation would meet the eight-employee threshold and be subject to the act; otherwise, it would have only seven employees and not be liable. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that Mrs. Elgin, performing only nominal duties without compensation, was not an employee as defined by the statute. Consequently, the Elgin Drug Store, Inc. was not subject to the act, and the decision to allow interest on the recovered funds was also affirmed, as the employer was compelled to litigate for the refund.

Unemployment CompensationEmployer DefinitionEmployee StatusCorporate OfficerUncompensated ServicesStatutory InterpretationTax RefundInterest on RecoveryAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. E2019-01190-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2020

In Re David S.

This is an appeal regarding the termination of parental rights for David S. (Father) and Cecilia S. (Mother). The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the termination of Mother's parental rights due to fundamental due process violations concerning proper notice and service of process. Regarding the Father, the Court vacated one of the grounds for termination (persistent conditions) because the trial court failed to make specific findings on all required elements. However, the termination of Father's parental rights was otherwise affirmed based on clear and convincing evidence of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and that termination was in the children's best interests. The children were initially removed due to allegations of drug exposure, environmental neglect, and association with a statutory rapist, and Father continued to struggle with drug abuse, domestic violence allegations, and an unsuitable home environment. The children are now in a pre-adoptive foster home, bonded with their foster parents, and desire adoption.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAbandonmentDue ProcessService of ProcessDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceUnsuitable HomeBest Interests of ChildAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. NO. 14-03-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2004

Kevin Lewis v. Randall's Food & Drug, L.P.

Kevin Lewis, an employee of Randalls, sued his employer for personal injury after injuring his back while lifting heavy boxes. Lewis, who was on modified work duty, claimed Randalls breached its duty of care by failing to observe federal lifting standards, requiring heavy lifting while he was on modified duty, and failing to provide an adequate workforce. The trial court granted Randalls' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reviewed the summary judgment as a no-evidence motion and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Lewis failed to present sufficient evidence of breach of duty or proximate causation for his claims. The expert testimony provided was deemed conclusory, and lay testimony was insufficient to establish causation due to the nature and timing of the alleged negligence and injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyNo-Evidence MotionModified Work DutyLifting InjuryWorkplace SafetyTexas Court of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Drug Enforcement Administration

Plaintiff Cheryl Holmes sued her employer, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), alleging employment discrimination based on sex and age, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under Title VII and the ADEA. Holmes claimed she was discriminatorily rotated from her Chief of Research and Analysis Section position, reassigned to "menial and degrading jobs," and forced into retirement. The Court granted the DEA's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding that Holmes failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, did not establish a prima facie case of gender or age discrimination due to lack of adverse employment action and similarly situated comparators, and failed to prove retaliation or a hostile work environment. The Court also found Holmes did not meet the higher harassment threshold required for constructive discharge.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of Remedies
References
77
Showing 1-10 of 1,303 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