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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 07-14-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Ashley Denham as Parent and Legal Guardian of F.L.J.B., a Minor Child v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case concerns an appeal filed by Ashley Denham, as legal guardian for Freedom Lynn Jean Burris, against Texas Mutual Insurance Company. The appeal challenges a trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of the insurer. The core dispute revolves around a worker's compensation claim following the death of Donnie Lee Burris in a motor vehicle accident, specifically whether his intoxication at the time of death absolves the insurer of liability. Appellant argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the decedent's intoxication, which was not properly addressed by the summary judgment. The appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's decision and remand the case for a trial on the merits.

IntoxicationSummary JudgmentWorker's Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewExpert Witness TestimonyMaterial Issue of FactMedical EvidenceBlood Test AnalysisDrug LevelsDecedent Death
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Micamold Radio Corp. v. Beedie

This case addresses a plaintiff's request for an injunction in a labor dispute. The court examined the retroactive application and constitutionality of Chapter 477 of the Laws of 1935, which amended the Civil Practice Act by adding section 876-a, outlining specific conditions for issuing injunctions in such disputes. The new law imposes rigorous requirements, including findings of unlawful acts, irreparable injury, and a lack of adequate public protection. After reviewing various legal precedents on statutory retroactivity, the court determined that the 1935 statute affects substantive rights, not merely procedural forms. Consequently, the court concluded that the law cannot be applied retroactively to the plaintiff's pre-existing cause of action, thus ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

injunctionlabor disputestatutory interpretationretroactivityCivil Practice ActSection 876-aequitable reliefsubstantive lawprocedural lawworker rights
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Allied Waste North America, Inc. v. Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.

This memorandum addresses multiple summary judgment motions in a legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty case. Plaintiffs, Allied Waste North America, Inc., and BFI Waste Services, LLC, sued three law firms and their members for alleged negligence in an underlying state court litigation that resulted in a $7.2 million verdict. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations, finding factual disputes about when the plaintiffs should have discovered the malpractice. It also denied summary judgment on the legal malpractice claims, citing conflicting expert testimony. The court granted partial summary judgment on damages, limiting the plaintiffs' recovery to their $2.5 million self-insured retention and litigation costs, while denying the application of the collateral source rule. Furthermore, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting defendants' affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and comparative fault based on the plaintiffs' refusal to settle the underlying case. Lastly, the court granted Levine Orr Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but denied it for the breach of fiduciary duty claim due to remaining factual questions.

Legal MalpracticeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleDamages LimitationExpert Witness TestimonyProfessional JudgmentAttorney Negligence
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1993

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton v. Legal Services Staff Ass'n

Plaintiff Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, a law firm, sought a preliminary injunction against the Legal Services Staff Association (Local 2320), its president Scott M. Sommer, and Barbara Small, arising from a bitter labor dispute between the union and Legal Services for New York City (LSNY). The conflict escalated when union members engaged in disruptive activities, including a 1991 sit-in at Cleary Gottlieb's offices and, more recently, jamming the firm's fax machines with over 400 transmissions on November 17, 1993. The union also planned a disruptive 'Breakfast at Cleary Gottlieb' event. The court found that the defendants' conduct, including trespassing and disrupting business operations, was not protected by constitutional or labor rights. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from sending more than ten fax transmissions per day (each not exceeding five pages) to Cleary Gottlieb, and from trespassing on or physically occupying the firm's premises.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeFax Machine MisuseTrespassingUnion ActivityHarassmentInjunctive ReliefDisruptive ConductEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court
References
1
Case No. ADJ1700793 (SAC 0307437) ADJ3714832 (SAC 0307399)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

JUANITA BRADLEY (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF PLACER

This case involves a dispute over liability for a medical-legal report cost. The defendant seeks reconsideration of a prior award holding them responsible for Dr. Adelberg's $4,237.50 report. The defendant argues the judge ignored a prior order for an Agreed Medical Evaluation (AME) and that the applicant's attorney improperly proceeded with Dr. Adelberg's exam. The Board granted reconsideration, preliminarily finding it may be inequitable to place the full cost on the defendant, and intends to split the expense between the defendant and applicant's attorney. A dissenting opinion argues the defendant's own correspondence shows an ongoing dispute regarding the AME, supporting the original award of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ReportAgreed Medical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code Section 4062(a)Stipulation and OrderEquitable PowersLien Claimant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Legal Aid Society

Plaintiff, an attorney formerly employed by The Legal Aid Society, initiated this action seeking wage step increases. The case was initially removed to federal court under Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, based on an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. However, through subsequent proceedings and clarifications by plaintiff's counsel, it became evident that the claim was predicated solely on an alleged independent oral promise made by the Society to individual attorneys, rather than a contract between an employer and a labor organization. The court concluded that Section 301 jurisdiction only applies to violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization, and thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the individual oral contract claim. Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Labour LawSubject Matter JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractWage DisputesDistrict CourtEmployment LawNational Labor Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Maul

The Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), represented by its director Bruce Dix, petitioned the court to compel Thomas Maul, Commissioner of OMRDD, and Joseph Colarusso, Director of Sunmount DDSO, to provide access to investigative files regarding an incident involving resident Lynnette T. MHLS argued its statutory mandate under Mental Hygiene Law § 47.03 required access to safeguard residents from abuse. Respondents contended the records were protected from disclosure under Education Law § 6527 (3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, which prioritize confidentiality for quality assurance and incident investigations. The court, however, distinguished between CPLR Article 31 discovery and MHLS's specific statutory right of access. The court ruled that the statutes cited by the respondents did not prohibit disclosure to MHLS, granting MHLS access to the requested investigative reports and underlying documentation, with the stipulation that MHLS maintain their confidentiality.

Mental Hygiene LawAccess to RecordsCPLR Article 78Investigative FilesPatient RightsConfidentialityAbuse and MistreatmentState FacilitiesOMRDDSunmount DDSO
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,723 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