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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. M2012-00341-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Martin D. Red Patterson, as a Citizen of the State of Tennessee, and as Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 369 v. The Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Co.

This case addresses whether the residential addresses of employees of third-party contractors, found in payroll records submitted to the Convention Center Authority (CCA), are exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA). Petitioners, Martin D. Patterson and Wayne Wells, sought these records to investigate compliance with prevailing wage laws and local hiring commitments for a public construction project. The CCA had redacted employee home addresses and social security numbers, citing privacy rights and exemptions under state and federal law. The trial court ruled that home addresses were not exempt and ordered their disclosure, though it denied attorney's fees to the petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TPRA does not explicitly or implicitly exempt such addresses from disclosure, and federal FOIA balancing tests are not applicable to the TPRA's framework. The appellate court further upheld the denial of attorney's fees, acknowledging the CCA's good faith in resisting disclosure.

Public Records ActEmployee PrivacyStatutory InterpretationGovernment ContractsPrevailing WageDisclosure LawsAppellate DecisionTennessee LawFOIA ComparisonAttorney Fee Discretion
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

New York State Assn. for Affordable Hous. v. Council of the City of N.Y.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to affirm the constitutionality of Local Law No. 44 (2012) of the City of New York. This local law, enacted by the City Council, aims to control and restrict the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in its efforts to create affordable housing. Saxe argues that Local Law 44 improperly contravenes state legislature's statutory delegations of responsibility to HPD, restricting the agency's authority. The local law adds reporting requirements for HPD and developers, but also directs that certain contractors be deemed ineligible for prequalified lists if they fail to provide wage information or have a history of construction conditions. The dissent contends that Local Law 44 interferes with and frustrates the operation of state laws by imposing additional terms and conditions on HPD's supervisory role over affordable housing construction, thereby impeding HPD's discretion and flexibility. While not agreeing with the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection arguments, Saxe aligns with the City and HPD's conflict preemption argument, asserting that the local law is invalid.

Affordable HousingLocal Law PreemptionState Statutory AuthorityNew York City CharterHousing Preservation and Development (HPD)City Council LegislationConflict PreemptionMunicipal Home RuleContractor EligibilityWage Reporting Requirements
References
8
Case No. RQ-0006-GA
Regular Panel Decision

Opinion No.

The opinion from the Texas Attorney General addresses whether the Howard County Commissioners Court can utilize filing fees from the county law library fund (Local Government Code §323.023) to finance online legal research services. Specifically, it evaluates a proposal from the Howard County Bar Association to provide Westlaw access to the general public, jail inmates, judges, and public and private attorneys. A primary concern was the potential for impermissible subsidization of private attorneys and a violation of Article III, Section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits the unconstitutional grant of public funds for private purposes. The Attorney General concluded that the relevant statute permits such expenditures for the law library and judges, and any incidental benefit to private attorneys does not render the expenditure unconstitutional, provided there is a predominant public purpose and adequate public control. Ultimately, the decision rests with the commissioners court's discretion to determine if the expenditure serves a legitimate public purpose and is adequately controlled.

Legal Research ServicesCounty Law Library FundPublic Funds ExpenditureConstitutional LimitationsTexas Local Government CodeHoward County Commissioners CourtAttorney General OpinionPublic Purpose DoctrineIncidental Private BenefitContract Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Board of Trustees

This case involved a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 3 (2006) of the Village of Wesley Hills, which authorized additional special permit uses by amending the zoning law. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, had annulled the local law, deeming it unlawful spot zoning. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, denying the petitioners' petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the local law did not constitute unlawful spot zoning and that the Board of Trustees had complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and relevant provisions of the General Municipal Law.

Zoning LawSpot ZoningLocal LawCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewGeneral Municipal LawAppellate ProcedureLand Use
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America

This case, an action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, involved a court-ordered tripartite arbitration between Bell Aerospace Company, Local 516, and Local 205. Following the arbitrator's decision on January 30, 1973, Local 205 moved to vacate the award, citing alleged misbehavior, exceeded authority, disregard of law, and evident partiality by the arbitrator. Local 516 cross-moved to confirm the award. The court, acknowledging its limited jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, thoroughly reviewed Local 205's claims. It found no sufficient grounds to vacate the award, rejecting all allegations against the arbitrator. Consequently, the court denied Local 205's motion to vacate and granted Local 516's motion to confirm the arbitration award.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActUnion DisputeJudicial ReviewArbitration AwardMotion to VacateMotion to ConfirmFederal CourtCollective BargainingMisbehavior of Arbitrator
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 18,279 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