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

Perez v. Wade

The plaintiff, Carmina Perez, initiated an action against Ricky L. Wade, the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Drug Task Force, Henry County, Tennessee, and Monte Belew, alleging violations of constitutional amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against the Task Force as it was deemed a state entity entitled to sovereign immunity. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against Wade and Belew in their official capacities, applying the Ex Parte Young exception to allow prospective injunctive relief, despite some requested relief being retrospective.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Judgment on the PleadingsState Sovereign ImmunityOfficial Capacity SuitsEx Parte Young DoctrineProspective Injunctive ReliefDrug Task ForceTennessee LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Tenth Judicial District Drug Task Force

Plaintiff Susan Lamb sued the Tenth Judicial District Drug Task Force (DTF) and Officer David Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), alleging violations of her constitutional rights and state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the DTF is a state agency not subject to § 1983 and Officer Jones is immune as a state employee. The court found it could not determine the DTF's status as a state or local entity, or Officer Jones's state employee status, without reviewing extrinsic materials. Consequently, the court denied the motion to dismiss, reserving these determinations for later stages of the litigation.

Motion to Dismiss42 U.S.C. § 1983State Agency StatusEleventh Amendment ImmunityGovernmental Tort Liability ActMalicious ProsecutionFalse ImprisonmentDrug Task ForceState Employee ImmunityTennessee Law
References
34
Case No. No. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00213
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Colamaio-Kohl v. Task Essential Corp.

Claimant Ernest Colamaio-Kohl sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an accidental injury during his employment as a skin care specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Colamaio-Kohl and Task Essential Corp., and awarded benefits. Task Essential Corp. appealed, contesting the employer-employee relationship, arguing Colamaio-Kohl was a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and asserting improper notice of injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The court concluded that Task Essential Corp. exercised sufficient control over Colamaio-Kohl, he was not a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and late notice was excusable due to Task Essential Corp.'s actual knowledge of the accident.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentLate NoticeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentSkin Care SpecialistRetail Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carvajal

This case addresses whether New York had territorial jurisdiction over a defendant prosecuted for first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy, despite the defendant residing and the cocaine being seized in California. The New York State Drug Enforcement Task Force uncovered an interstate drug trafficking ring transporting cocaine from San Francisco to Queens County, New York. The defendant, the West Coast partner, was involved in planning shipments and overseeing drug preparation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that New York rightly exercised jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 (1) (c) because a conspiracy to commit the possessory offenses occurred in New York, evidenced by the defendant's physical presence and numerous telephone conversations with New York-based accomplices.

Territorial JurisdictionCriminal Possession Controlled SubstanceConspiracyInterstate Drug TraffickingConstructive PossessionTelecommunications LawOvert ActsWaiver of Jury ChargeAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2003

Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Ass'n v. United States Air Force

Plaintiffs, including the Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association and individual landowners, challenged the United States Air Force's Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Noise Control Act (NCA). They alleged failures in adequately considering environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, responding to public comments, and implementing mitigation measures. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Air Force had taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences, sufficiently addressed public concerns, and complied with NEPA's procedural requirements regarding alternatives, mitigation, and FAA involvement. The Court found the agency's decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Environmental LawNEPANoise Control ActSummary JudgmentAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewAir Force TrainingEnvironmental Impact StatementRecord of DecisionAirspace Management
References
73
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

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 1,163 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