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

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Blyer v. STATEN ISLAND CABLE LLC.

Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, sought a preliminary injunction against respondents Time Warner Cable and Local 3. The injunction aimed to prevent the enforcement of Section 7 of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which the petitioner argued constituted an improper 'union signatory' agreement, violating Section 8(e) of the NLRA. This section limited Time Warner's ability to subcontract work only to companies that had agreements with Local 3. The court found reasonable cause to believe that Section 7 had an improper secondary purpose, dictating the labor policies of non-signatory entities like Advantage Cable, rather than genuinely preserving work for the bargaining unit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the contested provisions of Section 7 of the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion Signatory AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionNLRA Section 8(e)NLRA Section 10(l)Work PreservationSecondary ObjectiveSubcontractingLabor Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Fashion Headquarters, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought a preliminary injunction against Fashion Headquarters and its President, Paul Cascio, for violating the "hot goods" provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1). The defendants were accused of transporting or selling goods produced by contractors who failed to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. The court found that the Secretary successfully demonstrated irreparable harm would ensue without an injunction and showed a clear likelihood of success on the merits, referencing the defendants' history of non-compliance and unreliability. Although the court granted the preliminary injunction, it determined that the Secretary's proposed terms were overly broad. Consequently, a narrower injunction was issued, mandating that the defendants implement steps to ensure contractor compliance with the FLSA, including verifying adherence, reviewing payroll records, obtaining written assurances, and promptly reporting any violations to the Department of Labor.

FLSAHot GoodsPreliminary InjunctionMinimum WageOvertimeContractor LiabilityUnfair CompetitionLabor Law ViolationsEquitable ReliefJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Heldman v. Douglas

The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted a preliminary injunction against defendants Douglas and Stingo in an action for an injunction and money damages. The preliminary injunction was based on a non-compete covenant in a distributor's agreement between Heldman Catering Co., Inc. and the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this order, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the preliminary injunction improvidently granted because the covenant was unenforceable due to Heldman Catering Co., Inc. discontinuing business, there was substantial doubt regarding the agreement's authenticity, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was enjoinable, as the business knowledge utilized was publicly available.

InjunctionNon-compete clausePreliminary injunctionDistributor agreementContract lawAbuse of discretionCovenant not to competeBusiness discontinuationEnjoinable conductTrade secrets
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. McGregor

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction that barred the defendant from proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Despite the Board ordering the defendant's case reopened, the plaintiff had only sought a preliminary injunction. A critical prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, irreparable injury, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order of the Supreme Court. The injunction against the defendant was unanimously vacated.

InjunctionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardReversedVacatedAppellate ReviewCPLR 6312
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1990

Bergin v. Peplowski

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a common driveway. Despite the injunction, defendants continued to obstruct access. Plaintiff moved to hold defendants in contempt, which the Supreme Court granted, imposing a fine and counsel fees. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the contempt finding, concluding that the preliminary injunction's mandate was clear and defendants' disobedience was proven. The court rejected defendants' arguments regarding the injunction's precision, its breadth, and the necessity of a hearing, finding sufficient factual basis in the submitted papers.

Contempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionCommon DrivewayObstructionCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewCourt Order EnforcementProperty RightsJudiciary LawMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pavilion Nursing Home v. Litto

The case concerns a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by a proprietary nursing home against a defendant union and John Litto. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from picketing, interfering with business, and coercing recognition, following the union's call for a recognitional strike. While a petition for an election was pending with the State Labor Relations Board (NYSLRB), and the NLRB had declined jurisdiction, the union initiated a strike solely to compel recognition, which the court deemed illegal. Citing various precedents, the court granted the preliminary injunction, emphasizing that the union must adhere to established legal procedures through the NYSLRB. The injunction was conditional, set to terminate by September 15, 1965, or sooner if the union won an election.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionRecognitional StrikeUnion RecognitionState Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations BoardPicket LineCollective Bargaining AgentUnfair Labor PracticeJudicial Precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roche v. Bruder

Petitioner Anthony J. Ferraro, president of the Westchester Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City of White Plains from compelling him to return to his assistant engineer duties. Ferraro had been dedicating his full time to union affairs since 1975 while receiving an engineer's salary, a practice he claimed was a condition of employment. The City ordered him back to work in 1978, prompting an improper practice charge with PERB and this injunction request. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no clear legal right to the relief, no demonstration of irreparable injury to the union members, and that a balancing of equities favored the City, which was suffering substantial monetary loss by paying a full salary for no engineering services.

Union PresidentPreliminary InjunctionPublic EmploymentCollective BargainingIrreparable HarmTaylor ActPERBImproper Practice ChargeStatus QuoEquitable Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Association of Machinists Workers v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, S.p.A.

The plaintiff union sought a preliminary injunction against Alitalia, alleging violations related to employee medical coverage, job preferences for part-time employees, and the unjust discharge of Joseph Cammarata, arguing these constituted breaches of collective bargaining agreements and the Railway Labor Act. The court determined that most of the plaintiff's claims, specifically those concerning medical reimbursement and part-time employee numbers, were 'minor disputes' under the Railway Labor Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alitalia System Board of Adjustment. Regarding Cammarata's discharge, the court found no irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief, noting his current medical inability to work. Ultimately, the court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the System Board of Adjustment was the proper forum for resolving these disputes.

Preliminary InjunctionRailway Labor ActMinor DisputesSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementAnti-Union AnimusIrreparable HarmFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment PracticesMedical Coverage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pastrana v. Folding Box, Corrugated Box & Display Workers Local 381

The plaintiffs, employees of Star Corrugated Box Co., Inc. and members of Local 381, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 381 and Star. They alleged that union officers executed the agreement despite employee rejection, violating their duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The court found no evidence of discrimination, distinguishing the cited precedents. Furthermore, it was noted that Local 381, as the statutory bargaining representative, had the right to enter the agreement. The plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief, coupled with the National Labor Relations Board's dismissal of related unfair labor practice charges against the employer (thus validating the contract), led the court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that granting the injunction would disrupt economic interests and that plaintiffs failed to show a clear right to relief.

Preliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationLachesUnfair Labor PracticesUnion Contract RejectionFederal CourtLabor LawInjunctive Relief
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 791 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