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

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1982

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Connetquot Central School District & Connetquot Teachers Ass'n

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming a Special Term's order directing a board of education to arbitrate a grievance filed by a teachers union. The union's claim involves continued use of office space in school district buildings, citing a collective bargaining agreement and past practice. The dissent contends that the arbitration clause is broad and encompasses the dispute, rejecting the employer's argument that law or public policy (specifically Education Law § 414 or Civil Service Law § 209-a) prohibits arbitration of this grievance. Justice O'Connor asserts that the union's use of office space for its statutory duties as a collective bargaining agent serves a "school purpose," similar to administrative and support services, and thus is not excluded by Education Law § 414. The dissent concludes that the order compelling arbitration should be affirmed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceTeachers UnionBoard of EducationOffice SpaceSchool PropertyEducation LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board
References
15
Case No. C.A. No. H-78-1831 (Consolidated Multidistrict Litigation)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1980

In Re Alien Children Education Litigation

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Ann. tit. 2, § 21.031, which prohibited the use of state funds to educate undocumented children and allowed local school districts to exclude them or charge tuition. Plaintiffs, undocumented school-age children, argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by federal law, and conflicted with international law. Judge SEALS of the Southern District of Texas found the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that access to education is a fundamental right, and the statute imposed an absolute deprivation of this right on undocumented children, who are "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state. The state's arguments regarding fiscal integrity and deterrence of immigration were found not to be compelling governmental interests. The court issued a permanent injunction against the Commissioner of Education, preventing the implementation of the challenged sections of the Texas Education Code.

Undocumented ChildrenPublic Education AccessEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentState Statute UnconstitutionalityImmigration Status DiscriminationFundamental Rights (Education)Judicial ScrutinyFiscal Policy (State)Class Action
References
15
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00957 [213 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal by tenured public school teachers, Christine O'Reilly, Lucia Jennifer Lanzer, Ingrid Romero, and Elizabeth Loiacono, against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York. They challenged an arbitration award, known as the Impact Award, which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, negotiated by their union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and the Department of Education (DOE). The petitioners were placed on leave without pay for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The court affirmed the dismissal of their CPLR articles 75 and 78 petitions. It found that the teachers lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. Additionally, the court ruled that placement on leave for non-compliance with a condition of employment, such as vaccination, is not a disciplinary action, making Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a inapplicable. The court also concluded that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, given the opportunities provided for compliance or exemptions. A dissenting opinion argued that a new, nonstatutory condition of employment cannot be imposed on tenured teachers without legislative action, and they are entitled to due process under Education Law § 3020-a before being placed on unpaid leave or dismissed.

Tenured TeachersCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateArbitration AwardLeave Without PayDue Process RightsEmployment ConditionsCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewPublic Education Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Board of Education v. Ambach

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner ordered the petitioner, the Committee on the Handicapped, District 28 (COH), to reimburse Marilyn P. for tuition and maintenance costs for her handicapped child. The COH had initially found the child not handicapped and failed to provide timely formal written notice of its determination to the mother, violating Education Law regulations. An independent hearing officer reversed the COH's finding but denied reimbursement. Upon appeal, the Commissioner affirmed the handicapped finding and ordered reimbursement due to the COH's procedural violations. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the child was handicapped and the entitlement to reimbursement, citing a rational basis for the decision and deference to the agency's interpretation. However, the court modified the determination, annulling the order for the petitioner to pay the full cost, and remitted the matter for apportionment of costs between the petitioner and the State of New York, as per Education Law sections 4405 and 4407.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewEducation LawHandicapped Child PlacementTuition ReimbursementProcedural Due ProcessNotice RequirementsTimeliness ViolationsAgency DeferenceCost Apportionment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bogutski v. Board of Education

The plaintiff, Angelina Bogutski, sued the Board of Education of the City of New York and an individual custodian-engineer for injuries sustained during her employment. The court ruled that the negligence action is barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6). The individual defendant, also an employee of the Board of Education, is considered a coemployee. Therefore, the plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining a negligence action against a coemployee under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, granting summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationNegligence ActionCo-employee ImmunityEmployer LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealEducation LawAppellate DivisionInjury During EmploymentGovernment Employer
References
4
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 17,379 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