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
Feb 15, 2012

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System initiated a securities class action against Lockheed Martin Corp. and three executives, alleging intentional false and misleading statements regarding the performance of Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Systems division. The defendants moved to dismiss all counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, a claim of securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, finding sufficient allegations of falsity, materiality, and scienter, particularly for executive Linda Gooden. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, asserting control person liability, due to the plaintiff's failure to present a plausible alternative theory where defendants were not primary violators. This memorandum details the reasons for these rulings.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPSLRASafe HarborBespeaks Caution DoctrineScienterMaterialityCore Operations DoctrineGroup Pleading
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Cytyc Corp. v. Neuromedical Systems, Inc.

Cytyc Corporation initiated this action against Neuromedical Systems, Inc. (NSI) and two of its officers, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and New York General Business Law, alleging unlawful disparagement of its ThinPrep system. NSI filed a counterclaim, asserting claims under the Lanham Act, for defamation, and for statutory and common law unfair competition under New York State law. The core of NSI's counterclaim was that Cytyc made numerous false or misleading statements regarding its ThinPrep system and NSI's Papnet system. The court granted Cytyc's motion to dismiss NSI's defamation claim, finding the statements either true or non-actionable opinion, and not concerning NSI. However, the court denied dismissal for NSI's Lanham Act, General Business Law, and common law unfair competition claims, determining that a small number of the challenged statements by Cytyc could provide a basis for relief.

Lanham ActUnfair CompetitionFalse AdvertisingDefamationProduct DisparagementMedical Device MarketingFDA ApprovalCivil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)CounterclaimThinPrep System
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. M/V Gediz

General Electric Company brought an action against Turkish Cargo Lines under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for alleged cargo damage. Turkish Cargo Lines moved for summary judgment, asserting that General Electric's claim was barred by COGSA's one-year statute of limitations. General Electric contended that Turkish Cargo was estopped from raising this defense due to its conduct, which supposedly induced General Electric not to file suit within the required period. The court conducted a hearing to assess the validity of the estoppel claim. Ultimately, the court found that General Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient conduct by Turkish Cargo to warrant an estoppel, noting that claimed extensions were invalid or made by unauthorized agents. Consequently, Turkish Cargo Lines' motion for summary judgment was granted, and General Electric's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

COGSAStatute of LimitationsEstoppelSummary JudgmentCargo DamageMaritime LawShipping DisputeAgent AuthoritySettlement NegotiationsTime Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broder v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Plaintiff Gerald D. Broder initiated a class action against Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, Inc., alleging breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Law § 349, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. Broder contended that the defendants failed to provide uniform cable service rates and notify customers of discounted "Winter Season" rates, in violation of federal and state statutes. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the referenced statutes were not expressly incorporated into the customer agreement and did not provide a private right of action, thus precluding Broder's claims. Broder's additional common law claims were also dismissed for lacking an independent common law duty. The plaintiff's motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal was consequently denied as moot.

breach of contractdeceptive practicesGeneral Business LawPublic Service Lawcable servicesuniform ratesprivate right of actionclass actionmotion to dismissinterlocutory appeal
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04927 [140 AD3d 1047]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2016

Ramirez v. I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying the defendant-appellant Antonio Iona's cross-motion for summary judgment based on the homeowner's exemption. The plaintiff's decedent was injured after falling from a makeshift ladder while working on a one-family home owned by Antonio Iona, who was also an officer of the general contractor, I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Antonio Iona's extensive involvement in the construction, including making and placing the ladder and instructing workers, negated his eligibility for the homeowner's exemption. Furthermore, the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation.

Homeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 240(1) liabilityLabor Law § 241(6) liabilityconstruction site accidentladder fallsummary judgmentpersonal injuryappellate reviewcontractor responsibilityworker safety
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2003

Mazor v. International Business Machines Corp.

The plaintiff, David M. Mazor, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted summary judgment to defendants A.R. Communication Contractors, Inc., ADCO Electrical Corp., and Daou Systems, Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. Mazor alleged injuries from being struck by a ladder dropped by an unidentified worker at Long Island Jewish Hospital in 1999. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the subcontractors, A.R. Communication and ADCO, were not in control of the worker or the ladder. Additionally, the general contractor, Daou Systems, Inc., was not liable as it only exercised general supervisory authority and did not direct the subcontractors' work.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentLadder FallNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. General Design and Development, Inc.

Jerry Johnson was severely injured in November 1991 when a drill bound, causing him to fall from a stepladder at a construction site. He and his spouse sued the general contractor, General Design and Development, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), among other claims. General subsequently initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Omni Plumbing Company and Thomas P. Pleat Construction, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) by the Supreme Court. The defendants appealed, contending the injuries were not elevation-related. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the stepladder was inadequate and the accident constituted an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus establishing a prima facie violation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityIndemnification
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,155 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