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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alteri v. General Motors Corp.

This order addresses a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs Louis J. Alteri, et al., challenging a March 19, 1996 decision that granted summary judgment to defendants General Motors Corp. and Local Union 854, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Management Relations Act lawsuit as untimely. The plaintiffs contended that the court erred in calculating the statute of limitations and in overlooking their argument for equitable tolling. The court reiterated that the six-month limitations period for a hybrid LMRA claim begins when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the union's breach, not the employer's, establishing April 1993 as the starting point. Furthermore, the court found no basis for equitable tolling due to fraudulent concealment, concluding that plaintiffs lacked diligence in discovering their cause of action despite any misleading information. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Labour LawStatute of LimitationsHybrid ClaimBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingReconsiderationSummary JudgmentUnion Breach
References
7
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. 88 Civ. 1534
Regular Panel Decision

Barbagallo v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas L. Barbagallo filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (GM) in New York, alleging age discrimination related to its Special Separation Program. The program offered varied separation incentives based on employee age and length of service, notably restricting severance pay to employees under age 53. GM sought summary judgment, asserting that its program, including severance pay provisions, falls under the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), thus preempting New York's age discrimination laws. The Court analyzed whether the severance pay provisions, both in isolation and as an integrated part of the overall program, constituted an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, differentiating it from one-time severance payments. Concluding that GM's Special Separation Program, with its severance pay components, is governed by ERISA, the Court found Barbagallo's state law age discrimination claim preempted and granted GM's motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentERISA PreemptionAge DiscriminationSeverance PayEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanSpecial Separation ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment LawState Law ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laneuville v. General Motors Corp.

This Memorandum-Decision & Order addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs General Motors Corporation and OHM Remediation Services, Corp. against Third-Party Defendant Kirk Bros. Co., Inc. The underlying action stems from injuries sustained by an employee of Kirk Bros. Co., Inc. at a General Motors facility, leading the employee to sue General Motors and OHM for negligence and violations of New York Labor Law. General Motors and OHM subsequently sought contractual indemnification from Kirk Bros. Co., Inc. based on a subcontract agreement. The Court determined that factual issues remain regarding Kirk's negligence, which is a precondition for triggering the indemnification clause. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment for contractual indemnification was denied.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionNew York Labor LawNegligenceSubcontract AgreementThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation LawWorkplace AccidentStatutory InterpretationConstruction Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogg v. General Motors Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by individual employees and unions against General Motors, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concerning pregnancy and maternity leave policies. A settlement stipulation was submitted, but it excluded a subclass of female employees who were forced to take involuntary maternity leave before December 20, 1971. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy denied approval of the settlement, deeming it unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable. The court found that the stipulation improperly extinguished valid claims of this excluded subgroup without offering adequate consideration or a merits hearing, despite their high likelihood of prevailing.

Class ActionTitle VIIEmployment LawPregnancy DiscriminationMaternity Leave PoliciesSettlement ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCivil Rights Act of 1964Due Process RightsBackpay Awards
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1988

Hill v. General Motors Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff who sued General Motors for wrongful discharge and the UAW for breach of its duty of fair representation, a "hybrid" action under 29 U.S.C. § 185. The defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to exhaust internal union remedies. The court denied both motions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the adequacy of the union's internal appeals procedures to provide full relief and whether exhaustion would cause unreasonable delay. Additionally, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's demand for a jury trial.

Labor LawUnion Grievance ProceduresDuty of Fair RepresentationExhaustion of RemediesSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Court JurisdictionJury Trial Right
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winters v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiffs Roger Winters and David Burt sued General Motors for wrongful layoff after being promoted from unionized hourly employees to non-union salaried supervisors. They argued their layoffs violated the company's "Working With General Motors" handbook, which outlined seniority-based reduction-in-force procedures for employees with "Good/Competent" ratings. General Motors countered that the plaintiffs' month-to-month employment agreements, containing exclusivity clauses, superseded any handbook provisions, establishing an at-will employment relationship. The court, applying New York law, determined that the "express limitation" exception to the at-will doctrine arises singularly from contract law, and the plaintiffs' integrated employment agreements precluded the handbook from constituting a binding limitation. Consequently, finding no material fact genuinely in issue and concluding the defendant was entitled to discharge the plaintiffs with a month's notice, the court granted General Motors' motion for summary judgment.

wrongful layoffemployment at willsummary judgmentcontract lawemployee handbookseniorityexpress agreementconsiderationfederal diversity jurisdictionreduction in force
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,892 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