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

United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

This Memorandum and Order addresses objections by Harold Friedman and Anthony Hughes to the jurisdiction of the Independent Administrator, appointed under a Consent Decree between the U.S. Government and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to hear corruption charges against them. Friedman and Hughes challenged the Administrator's authority based on claims that the misconduct was "generally known" to the membership, disciplinary actions should be stayed pending criminal appeals, and a statute of limitations had expired. They also sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the hearings. The court affirmed the Independent Administrator's opinion, denying all jurisdictional objections and ruling that Friedman and Hughes failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. Consequently, their motions for preliminary injunctions were denied, allowing the Administrator to proceed with the hearings.

Consent Decree EnforcementLabor Union GovernanceRacketeering ChargesCollateral EstoppelPreliminary InjunctionStatute of LimitationsJurisdiction DisputeIBT CorruptionUnion DisciplineCriminal Conviction Appeals
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New York Times Co.

This case involves The New York Times Co. (Times) seeking a permanent injunction against the New York Newspaper Printing Pressmen’s Union No. 2 (Union) and to hold the Union in contempt of court. The dispute stems from a 1995 Consent Decree, part of an EEOC suit, aimed at increasing minority and female representation among Junior Pressmen. The Times alleged a work slowdown by the Union on August 19, 1998, in response to the Times notifying the EEOC of a proposed advancement of Juniors, an action the Times considered a good faith effort to comply with the Consent Decree. The Court found the work slowdown was deliberately caused by the Union and granted the permanent injunction, citing irreparable harm to the Times due to the perishable nature of its product and loss of goodwill. However, the Court denied the motion to hold the Union in contempt for an alleged September 1, 1998, slowdown, finding the evidence of non-compliance not clear and convincing and the connection to the Consent Decree too weak.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionWork SlowdownContempt of CourtConsent DecreeEEOC EnforcementTitle VIICollective BargainingNewspaper IndustryUnion Relations
References
9
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

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,506 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