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

In re the Arbitration between International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The petitioner, an unincorporated labor association, sought a protective order to prevent the taking of depositions by the respondent. The dispute arose from a grievance filed by Local 601 regarding a local supplement to a collective bargaining agreement, which the respondent refused to arbitrate. The petitioner then initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration. The respondent sought to depose various officials of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that discovery is not permissible in such proceedings without extraordinary need, that the depositions aimed to delve into the merits of the grievance (which is improper), and that they would cause delay and expense. The court denied the petitioner's motion, ruling that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to Federal Arbitration Act proceedings, permitting discovery into arbitrability, and that the respondent had shown expedition, with the petitioner selecting the forum.

Protective OrderDepositionsArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawDiscovery RulesArbitrabilityGrievance ProcedureFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1986

Wurttembergische Feuerversicherung AG. v. Pan Atlantic Group, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of a contract claim and granted the respondent’s cross motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from an underwriting management agreement, and due to the involvement of interstate commerce, the Federal Arbitration Act applied. The appellate court affirmed the order, emphasizing that the strong policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements outweighs concerns about potential piecemeal litigation, even when a related federal action is pending.

arbitrationcontract claimappealstay arbitrationcompel arbitrationFederal Arbitration Actinterstate commerceCPLR Article 75judicial reviewunderwriting management agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between I. Miller & Sons, Inc., & United Office & Professional Workers

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration filed by petitioners, who are employees of I. Miller & Sons, Inc. The petitioners sought to stay an arbitration proceeding between their employer and a respondent union. The union and employer had an agreement requiring new employees to join the union after thirty days as a condition of employment. The petitioners refused to join the union, and the employer declined the union's request to discharge them, citing the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). The petitioners argued the agreement was invalid under the Taft-Hartley Act and they had no obligation to arbitrate. The court denied the motion to stay arbitration, ruling that the petitioners, not being parties to the arbitration agreement, lacked standing to interfere with the proceeding. The court clarified that the phrase 'any party to the controversy' in the Civil Practice Act sections 1462 and 1462-a refers to parties to the arbitration agreement itself.

Arbitration AgreementStandingThird-Party RightsLabor LawUnion MembershipEmployer ObligationsContract InterpretationMotion to StayCivil Practice ActTaft-Hartley Act
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Priest v. General Electric Co.

The International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America-AFL-CIO, Local 320, sought to compel General Electric Company to arbitrate an employee's discharge as a security risk. General Electric moved to dismiss, challenging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of arbitration acts. The court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act and the Labor Management Relations Act mandated arbitration for collective bargaining agreements. Ultimately, the court found that the specific collective bargaining agreement did not provide for arbitration of employee discharge grievances, absent claims of union discrimination. Consequently, the court denied the union's application to compel arbitration and granted General Electric's motion to dismiss the proceeding due to the lack of an arbitrable question.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrabilityGrievance ProcedureContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1996

In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Elmer H. Blackburne, an Alcoholism Program Specialist with OASAS, was terminated for violating the Hatch Act by seeking elective office. He and his union, PEF, initiated a grievance process, claiming procedural rights under their collective bargaining agreement, which OASAS and GOER eventually deemed non-arbitrable. The Supreme Court compelled arbitration, but the Appellate Division reversed, citing public policy against arbitration in this context. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that public policy precludes arbitration of Blackburne's grievance. This decision stemmed from the imperative to prevent an arbitrator from usurping the OASAS Commissioner's sovereign authority to manage federal funds, as the Hatch Act mandates either employee removal or a significant loss of federal funding for the agency.

Hatch ActPublic EmploymentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementTermination of EmploymentPolitical ActivityFederal FundsPublic PolicySovereign AuthorityState Agency
References
19
Case No. H-95-4114
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National MacHiney Import & Export Corp.

This consolidated action involves efforts by Trans Chemical Limited (TCL) to enforce an arbitration award against China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CNMC). The dispute originated from a contract for a hydrogen peroxide plant in Pakistan, with an arbitration clause designating Houston, Texas. After an arbitration panel awarded TCL over $9.4 million, TCL sought confirmation in federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and New York Convention. CNMC challenged jurisdiction, service, and moved to vacate the award citing fraud and arbitrator misconduct. The court affirmed jurisdiction and proper service, ultimately denying CNMC's vacatur motions and granting TCL's request to confirm the arbitration award, including prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

International ArbitrationForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFederal Arbitration ActNew York ConventionContract EnforcementState-Owned EnterprisesSubject Matter JurisdictionService of ProcessArbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award Vacatur
References
129
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Buckley, a seaman, sought damages under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law for injuries sustained while working on an offshore drilling rig. Defendant Nabors Offshore Corporation moved to compel arbitration based on its Dispute Resolution Program (DRP). The Court denied the motion, ruling that seamen are explicitly exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under 9 U.S.C. § 1, regardless of their direct involvement in interstate commerce. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient evidence that Buckley actually read and understood the DRP, thus questioning the validity of any alleged arbitration agreement under Louisiana law. Therefore, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's employment contract was not governed by the FAA, and no binding arbitration agreement was established.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawFederal Arbitration ActSeaman ExemptionArbitration AgreementEmployment ContractContract ValidityInterstate CommerceTransportation WorkersDispute Resolution Program
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorn v. Dorn's Transportation, Inc.

Walter Dorn, a New York resident, petitioned the U.S. District Court to confirm an arbitration award against Oneida Motor Freight, Inc., another New York corporation. The dispute arose from Oneida's refusal to pay the purchase price for Dorn's Transportation, Inc., alleging Dorn's failure to disclose union pension fund withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Arbitrators ordered Oneida to pay Dorn $713,122.02. The court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, dismissed Dorn's petition. The dismissal was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the court determined that neither the Federal Arbitration Act itself nor arguments for interstate commerce or federal question jurisdiction via MPPAA interpretation provided an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, given the lack of diversity of citizenship among the parties.

JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitration Award ConfirmationInterstate CommerceFederal Question JurisdictionMultiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActContract DisputeDiversity JurisdictionWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1999

In Re Turner Bros. Trucking Co., Inc.

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Turner Brothers Trucking Company, Inc., challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute stemmed from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Tommy and Marilyn McCaskill against Turner Brothers after Tommy, an employee, was injured while operating a crane. Turner Brothers asserted that Tommy had signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act and sought its enforcement. The court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act was applicable, requiring a showing that the transaction 'substantially affected' interstate commerce, which Turner Brothers successfully demonstrated. However, the court ultimately upheld the trial court's decision, finding the arbitration agreement to be procedurally unconscionable due to Tommy's functional illiteracy and the circumstances under which the agreement was presented and signed. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActUnconscionabilityInterstate CommerceMandamusPersonal InjuryEmployment ContractContract LawTexas LawSupremacy Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 9,821 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