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

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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacQuesten General Contracting, Inc. v. HCE, INC.

The case involves a dispute between a general contractor, MacQuesten, and a subcontractor, HCE. MacQuesten sued HCE for failing to complete work, while HCE counterclaimed for unpaid work and filed third-party claims against Palmer Court and AMIC for mechanic's lien enforcement. A jury ruled in favor of HCE, awarding substantial damages for unpaid invoices, equipment conversion, punitive damages, and unjust enrichment. MacQuesten moved for a new trial or remittitur, challenging various damage awards. The court granted MacQuesten a new trial on delay damages and unjust enrichment, and reduced the conversion award due to duplication, offering HCE a conditional remittitur. Additionally, the court granted HCE's motion to amend and enforce its mechanic's lien against Palmer Court and AMIC, limiting the lien's scope to unpaid invoices.

Contract disputeSubcontractor agreementGeneral contractor liabilityMechanic's lienJury verdictRemittiturRule 50 motionRule 59 motionDelay damagesConversion claim
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01902 [170 AD3d 1506]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2019

Patricola v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff, Steven M. Patricola, commenced a premises liability action against defendants General Motors Corporation and GM Powertrain, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped on a walkway on their property. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the storm in progress doctrine. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court concluded that defendants' own submissions raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the storm had sufficiently abated prior to the accident, precluding the application of the storm in progress doctrine. Additionally, issues of fact existed regarding whether defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentstorm in progress doctrinesnow removallandowner liabilityfactual disputeappellate reviewnegligencehazardous condition
References
7
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

Murphy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Felix J. Murphy brought an action against General Electric Company (GE) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and New York state law, alleging age-based transfer and termination. Murphy sought declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages. GE filed motions to preclude expert testimony and for summary judgment. The court granted in part and denied in part GE's motion to preclude expert testimony. The court granted summary judgment for GE on the time-barred New York Human Rights Law claims and the abandoned ERISA claims, and also on Murphy's ADEA claims for failure to rehire and disparate impact. However, the court denied GE's motion for summary judgment on Murphy's ADEA disparate treatment claim, concluding that material issues of fact existed regarding GE's reasons for Murphy's transfer and termination, supported by statistical evidence and alleged discriminatory statements.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEADisparate TreatmentSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessEEOC DeterminationStatistical EvidenceContinuing Violation DoctrineReduction in Workforce
References
49
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

A.H.A. General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

A.H.A. General Contracting, Inc. (respondent) sued New York City Housing Authority (appellant) for damages related to extra work under two construction contracts. Respondent claimed that the Housing Authority's misconduct entitled it to recover despite its own noncompliance with contractual notice and reporting requirements for extra work. The court determined that these requirements were conditions precedent to suit, not exculpatory clauses. Finding no factual basis that the Housing Authority's alleged misconduct prevented respondent's compliance, the court concluded that the Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to the Housing Authority and dismissing the complaint was reinstated.

Construction ContractsExtra Work ClaimsNotice RequirementsReporting RequirementsConditions PrecedentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPublic Works ProjectsContractual Obligations
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,835 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