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

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Busch v. Lewis

The court addressed two motions. Firstly, a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was considered and subsequently denied, with the imposition of ten dollars in costs. Secondly, a motion seeking an extension of time to answer was reviewed. This motion was granted, allowing the respondent an additional five days to answer following the service of the order. The decision was rendered by a panel of judges including Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore, and Cohn, JJ.

Leave to Appeal DeniedExtension of Time GrantedAppellate ProcedureCourt CostsService of Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almoravids v. Chase Manhattan Bank

The employer-respondent moved to dismiss an appeal as untimely. The Board had previously affirmed a referee's determination in June 1977, disallowing a claim. The appellant did not appeal this decision but sought reconsideration. In December 1977, the Board advised no further action was warranted. In January 1978, the appellant requested an appeal of both the June and December 1977 determinations. The appeal from the June 1977 decision was deemed untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, leading to the granting of the employer-respondent's motion to dismiss that appeal. The appellant's separate motion for an extension of time to prosecute the appeal was also denied without costs.

Appeal DismissalUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation LawMotion GrantedMotion DeniedExtension of TimeBoard DecisionReconsideration Request
References
0
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn v. New York Times

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether the narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, established in Wieder v Skala, applies to a physician employed by a nonmedical entity like the New York Times. Dr. Sheila E. Horn, formerly Associate Medical Director, alleged wrongful termination for refusing to disclose confidential employee medical records without consent and for not misinforming employees about workers' compensation eligibility, citing professional ethical standards. While lower courts extended the Wieder exception, which applied to lawyers in a common professional enterprise, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that Horn's role involved corporate management responsibilities related to workers' compensation and did not constitute the 'very core' of her employment in the same way as a lawyer's professional services to a law firm's clients. Therefore, the ethical rules cited did not impose a mutual obligation between Horn and the Times to practice law in compliance with specific professional codes, as required for the Wieder exception.

At-will employmentBreach of contractPhysician-patient privilegeProfessional ethicsCorporate employmentRetaliatory dischargeWieder v Skala exceptionEmployment lawConfidentialityMedical director
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,781 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