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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
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

Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co.

Evelene N. Stein, a banquet captain, was terminated by Davidson Hotel Company after a random drug test returned a positive result. Stein filed a lawsuit alleging seven causes of action, including wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The trial court dismissed several claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to determine if the dismissal of an at-will employee for a positive drug test violates a clear mandate of public policy. The Court concluded that no such public policy was violated and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

wrongful dischargeat-will employmentrandom drug testingpublic policyemployee terminationTennessee Supreme Courtemployer rightsemployee privacyconstitutional rightsstatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. Docket No. 2018-06-2162, State File No. 69647-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2020

Woodard, Denny v. Freeman Expositions, LLC

Mr. Woodard, a stagehand for Freeman Expositions, LLC, was injured when a top-heavy cart loaded with Masonite fell on his left ankle and right arm. Freeman denied the claim based on affirmative defenses of willful misconduct (violating a "push, don't pull" rule) and illegal drug use (positive drug test for oxycodone and marijuana). The Court found Mr. Woodard was likely to prevail, concluding that he did not violate the rule, the cart was dangerous, and there was insufficient evidence linking his drug use to the injury. The Court ordered Freeman to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits for six weeks.

Willful MisconductIllegal Drug UseSafety Rule ViolationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsAverage Weekly WageProximate CauseAffirmative DefensesStagehand InjuryCart Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith County Education Ass'n v. Smith County Board of Education

This case involves a constitutional challenge by Smith County public school teachers against the Smith County Board of Education's random drug testing policy. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches due to insufficient notice regarding tested substances and intrusive implementation procedures. The Court determined that while random drug testing of teachers is not inherently unconstitutional and serves a legitimate deterrent purpose, the 2007 policy, as written and implemented, was flawed. Specifically, it lacked clarity on the specific drugs being tested, included an 'any detectable amount' clause, and involved intrusive sample collection practices. Consequently, the Court found the policy unconstitutional for violating the individual plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights due to its lack of adequate notice and unreasonable intrusion on privacy.

Fourth Amendment RightsDrug Testing PolicyPublic Education LawUnreasonable SearchesTeacher PrivacyConstitutional ChallengeSchool Board AuthorityDue ProcessIn Loco ParentisSafety-Sensitive Positions
References
9
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

Byron v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

The plaintiff, Carlyle Byron, initiated an action against Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for unpaid compensation, overtime, and discrimination. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss certain portions of the plaintiff's complaint, including claims from a previous lawsuit (Byron I) and a request for attorneys' fees from that prior litigation. The court determined that the plaintiff's amended complaint rendered many of the defendant's initial objections moot. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, noting that the claim for attorneys' fees from Byron I was premature to decide at this stage.

FLSANew York Minimum Wage ActNew York State Human Rights LawCivil Rights Act of 1866Employment DiscriminationOvertime WagesMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Attorneys' FeesPrior Litigation
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 7,679 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