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

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commerce Holding Co., Inc. v. Buckstone

Plaintiff Commerce Holding Company, Inc. sued defendants Stanley and Herbert Buckstone, the Roth defendants (executors of Jerrold Roth's estate), and Tronic Plating Company, Inc. for environmental contamination under CERCLA, RCRA, and various state common law claims related to a hazardous waste site in Farmingdale, New York. Commerce, as the property owner, incurred response costs under an EPA consent order due to Tronic's past discharge of toxic substances and sought relief from the defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and Commerce cross-moved for partial summary judgment on CERCLA liability. The Court dismissed the pendent state claims without prejudice, denied the motion to dismiss the CERCLA claim, and deferred decision on the RCRA claim pending further briefing. Commerce's motion for partial summary judgment was denied without prejudice.

Environmental LawCERCLARCRAHazardous Waste SitePollution LiabilityMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPendent JurisdictionResponse CostsNational Contingency Plan
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.)

This Memorandum Decision addresses the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding damages in an adversary proceeding. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co., Inc. sued Interstate Distribution, Inc. and Congress Financial Corporation, alleging violations of Article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Bulk Sales Law). A New York State Appellate Court had already determined Congress's liability for violating the Bulk Sales Law. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, was tasked with determining the appropriate damages. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that Congress is liable for the value of the inventory and equipment transferred, fixing damages at $14,976,662.00. The decision also awarded prejudgment interest to compensate the Plaintiff for Congress's wrongful retention of asset value, with the specific interest rate to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Bankruptcy LawBulk Sales LawUniform Commercial Code Article 6Summary JudgmentDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestFraudulent ConveyanceAsset TransferCreditor ProtectionTrustee Powers
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prince v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry.

The petitioner, S. J. Prince, sought workmen's compensation for an injury sustained in October 1924 while employed by the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway as a section hand in Carroll County, Tennessee. The defendant railway appealed the chancellor's judgment, which had awarded Prince compensation. The core defense was that both parties were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, making the workmen's compensation statute inapplicable and falling under the federal Employers’ Liability Act. The court reviewed several precedents concerning employment in interstate commerce. Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner and defendant were indeed engaged in interstate commerce, thus reversing the chancellor's judgment and dismissing Prince's suit.

Workers' CompensationInterstate CommerceFederal Employers' Liability ActRailroad Worker InjurySection HandCarroll County CourtInjury CompensationAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrecedent Analysis
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International-Great Northern R. v. Sifuentes

The plaintiff, a section hand for the appellant, was injured on October 5, 1926, while moving a heavy iron roller in Bryan, Texas, resulting in a crushed foot. He alleged negligence by the foreman and sought $1,000 in damages. The appellant pleaded a release signed by the appellee, claiming interstate commerce involvement, assumed risk, contributory negligence, and unavoidable accident. The appellee countered that the release was induced by misinformation from the hospital surgeon and the claim agent regarding his recovery. A jury found the appellant negligent, that negligence was the proximate cause, the plaintiff was misled into signing the release, and awarded $500 in damages, also finding no contributory negligence or unavoidable accident. The trial court entered judgment for the appellee, which the appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to avoid the release, no actionable negligence, and that the parties were engaged in interstate commerce with assumed risk. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the jury's findings on the release and negligence, and concluding that the parties were not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury.

NegligenceReleaseFraudMisrepresentationInterstate CommerceAssumed RiskContributory NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shields v. Babbitt

Plaintiff Hunter Schuehle sought a declaratory judgment that the 'take' provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are unconstitutional as applied to the Edwards species, arguing that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate activity and that the Sierra Club's enforcement constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Federal Defendants and Sierra Club moved for summary judgment, contending that the Edwards species affect interstate commerce, Schuehle lacked standing, and his claims were not ripe. The Court found the case justiciable, concluding that Schuehle had standing due to economic harm from reduced pumping and that the claim was ripe despite the lack of direct enforcement action. On the merits, the Court denied Schuehle's motion and granted the defendants' motions, upholding the constitutionality of the ESA's 'take' provision under the Commerce Clause (due to potential future commerce related to genetic diversity, prevention of destructive interstate competition, tourism, and scientific research) and the Treaty Power. The Court also rejected Schuehle's claim of unconstitutional delegation regarding the ESA's citizen suit provision, stating it does not represent an unlawful delegation of rulemaking authority.

Endangered Species ActCommerce ClauseConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentEnvironmental LawWater RightsGroundwater PumpingEdwards AquiferSpecies Protection
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amazon Petroleum Corporation v. Railroad Commission

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and its associated regulations and the Code for the petroleum industry. Complainants, including Anding and Panama Refining Company, argued that these federal provisions were an unlawful delegation of legislative power and infringed upon states' rights to regulate local oil production and refining, as they were not engaged in interstate commerce. Judge Bryant found that the regulations and code provisions lacked a constitutional basis as applied to the complainants, emphasizing that production and manufacturing are local activities not subject to federal control under the Commerce Clause, especially when Congress had not explicitly declared these local activities as burdens on interstate commerce. The court granted relief to the complainants, concluding that federal authorities exceeded their powers.

National Industrial Recovery ActInterstate Commerce ClauseDelegation of Legislative PowerStates' RightsOil and Gas RegulationConstitutional ChallengeFederal OverreachLocal ProductionEmergency DoctrineDue Process
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 322 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