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

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFoe Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated by DeFoe Corporation and American Bridge Company, a joint venture, against the New York City Comptroller and Mayor. The core issue was to challenge the denial of a contract registration for repairs to the Madison Avenue Bridge. Petitioners questioned the timeliness of the Comptroller's objection and whether the denial of registration was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and finally the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decisions of the Comptroller and Mayor. The courts found that the Comptroller's objection was timely and rationally based on the contractor's past corrupt activities, including tax evasion by principals, failure to disclose violations, and admitted illegal extortion payments.

Contract RegistrationMunicipal Agency ContractCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of ObjectionContractor ResponsibilityBusiness IntegrityTax EvasionDisclosure ViolationsExtortion Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union

This case involves a petition for a temporary injunction filed by the acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). The NLRB sought to enjoin the union from picketing Newport Miss, Inc. (Newport) following a complaint that the union was engaging in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. The union argued that its picketing had lawful objectives, including protesting an employee discharge and informing the public about Newport's substandard wages, and denied any current organizing interest. The court found that the Regional Director had reasonable grounds to believe the union's picketing had an unlawful objective of compelling recognition or employee union membership, causing irreparable injury to Newport and its contractors. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the union's picketing for 60 days or until the NLRB determines the merits of the pending charge.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingNational Labor Relations ActUnion OrganizingSecondary BoycottNLRB EnforcementEmployer RightsLabor Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elaine W. v. Joint Diseases North General Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Elaine W., sued Joint Diseases North General Hospital for unlawful sexual discrimination due to its policy of excluding pregnant women from its drug detoxification program. The hospital defended its blanket exclusion on medical grounds, citing a lack of specialized equipment, obstetricians, and licensing for obstetrical care. After conflicting rulings in lower courts, with the Appellate Division siding with the hospital, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court ruled that the hospital must prove its blanket exclusion is medically warranted at trial, rejecting the idea that a mere medical explanation, when disputed, validates a discriminatory policy. The case emphasizes that distinctions based on pregnancy constitute sexual discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law, requiring individual assessment unless a complete medical impossibility of safe treatment is demonstrated.

Sexual DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDrug Detoxification ProgramHospital PolicyMedical JustificationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Z.A.O., Inc. v. Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture

Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture (Yarbrough) sued Z.A.O., Inc. (ZAO) for breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass after ZAO, a former tenant operating a gas station, failed to remove hazardous substances from the leased property in El Paso, Texas upon lease termination. Despite ZAO's efforts and a state commission letter indicating no further corrective action was necessary for ZAO, the trial court found ZAO liable for trespass and nuisance. On appeal, the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lease required ZAO to remove all toxic substances. However, the appellate court reversed the findings of malice, nuisance, and trespass due to insufficient evidence, particularly noting that the state commission's determination of no further action superseded common law trespass claims. Consequently, the awards for past and future rental losses were reversed, but those for repair costs and soil testing were affirmed. Attorney's fees were reversed and remanded for segregation, as recovery is limited to the breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractNuisanceTrespassEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous WasteLease AgreementDamagesAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,788 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