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

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Flavin

The plaintiff, a union member who worked during a strike, sued the defendant, president of Local 1170, Communications Workers of America, for libel. The suit stemmed from a flyer circulated by the defendant that characterized the plaintiff as a "scab" and included a definition attributed to Jack London. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, ruling the term "scab" was not libelous as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed, citing federal pre-emption of state libel actions in labor disputes, as established in Linn v Plant Guard Workers and Letter Carriers v Austin. The court held that the use of "scab" and its definition, while insulting, is protected under federal labor law as figurative speech common in such disputes. The court also noted a qualified privilege for communications among union members. However, the issue of other potentially defamatory statements being made with actual malice was remanded for a triable issue of fact.

LibelDefamationLabor DisputeUnion ActivitiesFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechNLRA Section 7Scab EpithetQualified Privilege
References
4
Case No. 14-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

in Re Park Memorial Condominium Association, Inc., Sameer Soleja, Lynn Tibbe, Michael Kirk, Barbara Belbot, and Jonathan Simon

This mandamus proceeding arose from a dispute between a condominium association and residents over the ownership of insurance proceeds. The trial court ordered the Association to distribute funds to the unit owners (Homeowners) without proper pleadings requesting such relief. The Association, as relators, argued that this violated their due process rights and was an abuse of discretion, as disputed fact issues were resolved without trial or summary judgment. The appeals court held that the trial court deprived the Association of due process by granting relief not requested in pleadings and summarily disposing of a disputed fact issue, making the orders void. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to set aside its distribution orders.

MandamusDue ProcessPleadingsTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionCondominium LawInsurance ProceedsRule 11 AgreementVoid OrderAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. 2-08-027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2008

Terry Simmons v. Elmow Holdings, Inc. F/K/A Rio Pumping Services, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment rendered against appellant Terry Simmons on statute of limitations grounds in his personal injury suit against appellee Elmow Holdings f/k/a Rio Pumping Services, Inc. Simmons argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because Elmow should have been estopped from asserting a limitations defense, there were disputed issues of material fact regarding due diligence in obtaining service, he was not given the opportunity to amend his summary judgment affidavits, and there were disputed issues regarding the date the cause of action accrued. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Simmons failed to preserve his complaint for review regarding sanctions and that no disputed material fact issues were raised concerning the accrual date or due diligence in effecting service.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceService of ProcessAppellate CourtTexas LawJudicial AdmissionAffidavitWaiver of Service
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyna v. Bell

Tony Reyna, an employee of Lavonne Bell, d/b/a City Iron and Metal Company, sustained a back injury while lifting a heavy industrial battery. Bell, who did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, was sued for personal injury by Reyna, alleging negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace, proper supervision, and adequate equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell, prompting Reyna's appeal. The appellate court examined the disputed facts, including Reyna's claims of repeatedly requested but uninstalled equipment like a chain hoist and limited forklift availability. The court determined that these disputed facts raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding Bell's alleged negligence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe WorkplaceEquipment FailureWorkers' Compensation AbsenceBack InjuryAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. 15-25-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2025

Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University

Appellant Brian Beckcom seeks to abate his appeal and remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. This motion is filed after the trial court's May 12, 2025 order dismissed Beckcom's petition for a writ of mandamus against Texas A&M University. Beckcom argues that the lack of specific findings from the trial court, despite a timely request, hinders his ability to present a proper appeal. The underlying dispute involves Texas A&M's alleged non-compliance with Public Information Act requests related to the Corps of Cadets' freshman experience program and a hazing investigation. Beckcom asserts that without these detailed findings, the legal and factual bases for the dismissal remain unclear, potentially jeopardizing his appellate arguments.

Public Information ActMandamusOpen RecordsTexas A&M UniversityCorps of CadetsHazingStudent ConductDue ProcessFreedom of InformationHigher Education
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 8,205 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