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
Sep 27, 2004

Weintraub v. Levine

The plaintiffs appealed an order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a fraud case. They argued that the court should have denied the motion or postponed the decision under CPLR 3212 (f), which allows for postponement when essential facts are unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide affidavits or demonstrate that essential facts existed but could not be presented. The court concluded that mere speculation or hope for future discovery is insufficient to postpone a summary judgment decision, especially given clear documentary evidence against the plaintiffs' allegations.

fraudsummary judgmentCPLR 3212 (f)facts unavailablediscoveryappealcivil procedureappellate decisionmotionevidence
References
5
Case No. 91 CV 5056; 92 CV 0128
Regular Panel Decision

Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.

Plaintiff Loral Fairchild Corporation (Loral) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit, subsequently expanding it to include claims against National Semiconductor Corporation (NSC) and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation (FSC) concerning patent ownership. NSC and FSC sought to dismiss or stay these additional claims, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of ongoing patent ownership litigation in a California state court. While acknowledging the presence of supplemental jurisdiction for the ownership claims, the court ultimately exercised its discretion to abstain from immediate adjudication. After evaluating factors such as the order of jurisdiction, forum convenience, protection of federal plaintiff's rights, and the potential for piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that a stay was the most appropriate course of action. Consequently, the federal actions were ordered to be stayed pending the resolution of the related patent ownership dispute in the California state court.

Patent infringementPatent ownershipSupplemental jurisdictionAbstention doctrineJudicial estoppelStay of proceedingsIntertwined claimsFederal court discretionCalifornia state courtNew York state law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franklin National Bank Securities Litigation v. Ernst & Ernst

The court addresses a motion by John Brown and the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) to intervene and modify a confidentiality order. This order was part of a complex settlement resolving litigation stemming from the 1974 insolvency of Franklin National Bank. Brown and PIRG sought disclosure of settlement terms from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act, but were denied due to the existing protective order. The court grants permissive intervention to Brown and PIRG, acknowledging a common legal question regarding the validity of the secret settlement. However, the court ultimately denies their motion to modify the secrecy order, reaffirming the importance of upholding the original confidential settlement, which was crucial for resolving extensive litigation and saving significant resources. The court found that the balance of public and private interests, considered at the time of the original order, had not shifted sufficiently to warrant unsealing the records.

InterventionConfidentiality OrderFreedom of Information ActFOIASettlement AgreementProtective OrderFinancial InsolvencyMultidistrict LitigationPublic Interest LitigationDisclosure of Records
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chic Maid Hat Manufacturing Co. v. Korba

The court's order was affirmed, accompanied by an award of $10 for costs and disbursements. The litigants have been instructed to proceed directly to an immediate trial for the underlying action. The decision saw unanimous agreement among all members of the panel. This case involved an appeal challenging a previous order, which had denied the defendants' request to modify an existing injunction. The judicial panel presiding over this matter included McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper, and Wheeler, JJ.

Order AffirmedCosts and DisbursementsImmediate Trial DirectedInjunction ModificationMotion DeniedAppellate DecisionJudicial PanelCivil ProcedureTrial ProceedingsLegal Costs
References
0
Case No. ADJ9421326, ADJ9358335
Regular
May 06, 2016

IVY CHEN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

This case involves a dispute over whether the parties mutually consented to cancel their agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for applicant Ivy Chen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the initial order non-final. The WCAB then granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board determined that while no explicit written cancellation existed, the parties' actions in jointly pursuing a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) constituted mutual consent to abandon the AME agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2(f)mutual written consentQualified Medical Examinerinterim orderfinal ordersignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
0
Case No. ADJ2663736 (SFO 0480309), ADJ2844751 (SFO 0480630)
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

VILMA TENTNOWSKI vs. PEROTTI & CARRADE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration because the defendant's petition was not taken from a final order. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied it as a petition for removal. A dissenting commissioner argued that reconsideration should not have been granted but believed the WCJ's original finding of 95% permanent disability was correct. The dissenter advocated for reinstating the original award based on existing medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPerotti & CarradeState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalImprovidently GrantedFinal OrderMedical Record DevelopmentPermanent DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Christopher Carthew sued Suffolk County and several police entities/officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to train, and due process violations, along with state law claims, following his July 2006 arrest for violating an order of protection against his wife, Beth Carthew. The plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest after he entered a commercial building he claimed was his business, despite knowing his wife, who had an order of protection against him, was present. The court found that Officer Vezzi had probable cause to arrest Carthew, based on his wife's complaint, the confirmed order of protection, and Carthew's admission of entering the building knowing his wife was inside, thus dismissing the federal § 1983 claims. Even if probable cause were lacking, Officer Vezzi was entitled to qualified immunity because officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether probable cause existed. Consequently, the federal claims against Suffolk County (Monell claims) were also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProbable CauseOrder of Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Summary JudgmentMonell ClaimFederal ClaimsState Law Claims
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chant v. Filippelli

The petitioner appealed an order from the Family Court of Warren County, which had dismissed their application to modify a prior custody order regarding their daughter, born in 1991. The Family Court had found no substantial change in circumstances to warrant a modification, deeming it in the child's best interest to remain in the respondent's custody. The appellate court affirmed this decision, deferring to the Family Court's assessment of testimony and witness credibility. The court noted the child's positive development under the existing custody arrangement and rejected the petitioner's arguments concerning a school counselor's testimony versus a psychiatric social worker's recommendation, as well as the child's separation from a half-sibling.

CustodyVisitationChild's Best InterestFamily LawCustody ModificationAppellate ReviewParental FitnessChange of CircumstancesWarren County
References
9
Case No. ADJ7813636
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

RAMONA GARNICA vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES

Willow Medical Group sought reconsideration of a dismissed lien, alleging it had paid all required fees. However, the administrative law judge (WCJ) reported no order dismissing the lien on the date cited by Willow. Since reconsideration is only available for final orders and no such order exists in the record, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Willow's petition. The lien claimant's prior dismissal order had already been vacated by the WCJ.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissed lienOrder to DismissVacated orderCompromise and ReleaseWCJ ReportEAMS recordProcedural historySubstantive right
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24,870 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