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

Lockhart v. Heede International, Inc.

This memorandum addresses a motion to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heede International, Inc. against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The original lawsuits involved personal injury or wrongful death claims by TVA employees or their survivors, arising from a tower crane collapse. Heede, an original defendant, sought contribution or indemnity from TVA. The court found that the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (FECA) provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs against TVA and bars third-party actions for contribution or indemnity against TVA, absent a contract of indemnity. The court rejected Heede’s arguments that TVA impliedly agreed to indemnify Heede or waived its immunity, noting the limited application of the Ryan Stevedoring doctrine to non-admiralty cases. Consequently, the court granted TVA's motion, dismissing Heede's third-party complaint against TVA.

Federal Employee Compensation ActThird-party complaintIndemnityContributionExclusive remedyWorkers' compensationAdmiralty lawStrict liabilityMotion to dismissCrane accident
References
16
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Overnite Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers

Overnite Transportation Company filed a second amended complaint against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and numerous individuals, alleging violations of RICO, tortious interference with business and employment relations, and malicious destruction of property. The defendants moved to dismiss, transfer, and strike material from the complaint. The court denied the motion to transfer but addressed the motions to dismiss and strike. The court dismissed all predicate acts related to the Hobbs Act, Travel Act, state criminal extortion, and state criminal assault due to NLRA preemption, and also dismissed the state law tort claims. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss predicate acts sufficiently pleading attempted murder. The court also granted the defendants' motion to strike certain paragraphs as largely immaterial background information.

RICO ActLabor DisputeMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeAttempted MurderRacketeering ActivityNLRA PreemptionHobbs ActTravel ActTortious Interference
References
67
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 0119 (HB)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1996

TRUSTEES OF HEALTH & WELFARE v. Schlesinger Bros.

Plaintiffs, Trustees of the Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of the Four Joint Boards and Esther Maiese, filed an action against Schlesinger Brothers, Inc. and The International Leather Goods, Plastics, Novelty and Service Workers Union, alleging violations of ERISA and LMRA concerning the diversion of pension contributions. Schlesinger moved to dismiss the entire complaint, and the International moved to dismiss the ERISA claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted both motions, finding that neither defendant acted as a fiduciary under ERISA when negotiating the collective bargaining agreement, nor did plaintiffs have standing under LMRA § 301 as non-parties to the agreement. As a result, the complaint against Schlesinger was dismissed entirely, and the ERISA claim against the International was dismissed.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyLMRA ClaimsPension Fund ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissLack of StandingEmployer LiabilityUnion Fiduciary DutiesBenefit Plan AdministrationSole Benefit Rule
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 5,805 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