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

Dawkins v. Biondi Education Center

Plaintiff, a former employee of Leake & Watts and Biondi Education Center, filed a Fifth Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and unlawful discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He claims he was retaliated against and ultimately terminated for his union-organizing activities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing they are not state actors and that Title VI claims are not applicable to union activity. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claim, and that union activity is not a protected class under Title VI. The Fifth Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Title VIMotion to DismissState Action DoctrineCompulsion TestJoint Action TestPublic Function TestFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherry v. Jorling

Plaintiff Patrick L. Cherry filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by various defendants, including state officials and 'Doe' defendants. Cherry claimed his civil rights were violated through criminal proceedings and administrative actions to terminate him from employment, stemming from an allegedly unlawful search and seizure of DEC property from his home. Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege a tangible injury under the Fourteenth Amendment's 'stigma plus' test, and failed to state valid Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims. District Judge Arcara adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing the case in its entirety.

Civil RightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessMotion to DismissReport and RecommendationSearch and SeizureQualified Immunity
References
53
Case No. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soundview Associates v. Town of Riverhead

Sound-view Associates filed a lawsuit against the Town of Riverhead and other defendants, alleging violations of its First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The plaintiff claimed arbitrary denial of a special permit to construct a health spa, despite a pre-existing 1982 permit, and that defendants unlawfully coerced them into withdrawing a state court appeal by threatening to withhold approval for a separate clubhouse application from their tenant. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims brought under the Fifth Amendment and those against the Town Board and Planning Department as duplicative. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the substantive due process, procedural due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that Sound-view Associates had sufficiently alleged a valid property interest, arbitrary infringement, and a chilled exercise of First Amendment rights. The motion to dismiss individual defendants Richard Ehlers and Dawn C. Thomas was also denied due to their alleged personal involvement in the unconstitutional actions.

Zoning disputeLand useSpecial permitHealth spaFirst AmendmentDue Process42 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationCoercionProperty rights
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack Sand Co. v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority

This case concerns plaintiffs McCormack Sand Co.'s claims against the Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority and related entities regarding the sale of stockpiled sand and material. Plaintiffs alleged that the Authority's sale violated their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state law tort claims. District Judge Gleeson granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding no constitutional violations. The court determined there was no impermissible seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment claim was not ripe, and neither substantive nor procedural due process rights were violated. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims.

Constitutional LawSummary JudgmentFourth Amendment SeizureFifth Amendment TakingsDue ProcessProperty DisputeMunicipal LawCivil RightsSection 1983Federal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2013

Amato v. Hartnett

Plaintiff Carl Amato, a former Detention Officer for the City of Yonkers, brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and various employees, alleging violations of his First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and a state law conversion claim for his firearms. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on several claims, including the First Amendment, due process (commitment and termination), Fourth Amendment (search, seizure, and arrest), and conspiracy claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on Amato's Fourth Amendment claim regarding involuntary commitment against defendants Bennett and Fara, his Second Amendment claim, and his state law conversion claim, allowing these claims to proceed.

Civil RightsSection 1983First AmendmentFourth AmendmentDue ProcessSummary JudgmentPublic EmployeeRetaliationInvoluntary CommitmentFirearms Seizure
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. v. Asher

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) regarding withdrawal liability, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment (due process and takings clause), the Seventh Amendment (right to a jury trial), and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Soloff's motion for summary judgment, finding the MPPAA constitutional, consistent with Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents. The court dismissed Soloff's complaint and granted the Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming Soloff's withdrawal liability due to failure to timely arbitrate.

MPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentSeventh AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary Judgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balaber-Strauss v. Town/Village of Harrison

Plaintiffs, including Loronda and Vincent Murphy and a bankruptcy trustee, brought a § 1983 action against the Town/Village of Harrison and its officials, alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside a state defamation claim. They asserted that defendants retaliated against them and chilled their First Amendment rights through defamatory public comments regarding a tax foreclosure of the Murphys' home. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that defamation claims are insufficient for a § 1983 action and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an actual chilling effect on their speech. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed as inapplicable to state actors, and no Fourteenth Amendment violation was found. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

First AmendmentSection 1983DefamationMotion to DismissRetaliation ClaimChilling EffectSupplemental JurisdictionTax ForeclosureBankruptcy CodeDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cnty.

The case centered on Human Rights Defense Center's (HRDC) challenge against Baxter County's postcard-only mail policy at the Baxter County Jail, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. HRDC contended the policy unlawfully restricted its ability to send publications to prisoners and that it lacked proper notice for rejected mail. The Court denied the County's motion for reconsideration and dismissed HRDC's First Amendment claim, upholding the policy as rationally related to legitimate penological interests in security, cost-savings, and efficiency. However, a technical due process violation was found for certain August 5, 2016 mailings due to insufficient reasons for rejection, leading to a $4.00 nominal damages award for HRDC. All other Fourteenth Amendment claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Prison mail policyFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPrisoner rightsConstitutional lawPenological interestsContraband reductionJail efficiencyNominal damages
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 7,592 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