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

Kastor v. Sam's Wholesale Club

Plaintiff William A. Kastor sued Sam’s Wholesale Club for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kastor, a bakery department manager, argued he was not exempt from overtime requirements as he spent most of his time on non-managerial tasks. Sam's contended that Kastor was an executive or administrative employee, thus exempt under FLSA regulations. The court applied the FLSA 'short test' for executive exemption, finding Kastor's primary duty was management of the bakery department, despite his claims of time spent on non-managerial duties. The court considered the importance of his managerial tasks, his exercise of discretion, and his supervision of other employees. The court granted Sam’s Wholesale Club’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice, concluding that Kastor was an exempt executive employee.

overtime compensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAexecutive exemptionadministrative exemptionsummary judgmentprimary dutymanagementbakery departmentwage and hour
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. 09-07-026 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2008

Donna Jean Morgan v. Mitchell Delano Morgan

This appeal addresses a trial court's geographical residency restriction on the primary residence of children in a divorce proceeding. Appellant Donna Jean Morgan challenged the order, arguing it constituted an abuse of discretion, was not in the children's best interest, and infringed upon her fundamental rights. The trial court had restricted the children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the statutory factors for the best interest of the child and the constitutional arguments. The court found that the trial court possessed sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the application of that discretion was not erroneous, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild Residency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionParental RightsBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional LawDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2-04-314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

Gary Ford and Blinda Ford v. Performance Aircraft Services, Inc. and Robert Jones

This case concerns the appeal of Gary and Blinda Ford against the dismissal of their negligence, failure to warn, and strict liability claims. The trial court dismissed their case for failing to amend their pleadings within a nine-month deadline after special exceptions were granted. The Fords contended that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the exceptions, dismissing the case without first trying lesser sanctions, and not considering their untimely amended petition filed before the dismissal order. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to sustain the special exceptions regarding damages, individual liability for Robert Jones, and specificity of defective products. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the dismissal given the missed deadline and no violation of the Fords' due process rights.

Pleading defectsSpecial exceptionsDismissal of caseAbuse of discretionFair notice standardDamages claimsIndividual liabilityStrict product liabilityTimely amendmentDue process rights
References
19
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01635
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Committee

The Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust (the carrier) appealed an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc. The claimant, Licinio Marrero, sustained injuries and settled a personal injury action for $100,000 without obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC), which is required when SFCC liability is established prior to settlement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the carrier's request, believing it lacked discretion to compel such consent. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, clarifying that the Supreme Court does have the discretion to issue a nunc pro tunc order compelling consent if certain conditions are met: the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault, the settlement amount was reasonable, and the SFCC was not prejudiced. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundNunc Pro Tunc OrderSettlement ApprovalReimbursementPersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCarrier's WaiverConsent Requirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morgan v. Morgan

This appeal concerns a trial court's imposition of a geographical residency restriction in a divorce proceeding involving Donna Jean Morgan and Mitchell Delano Morgan. Donna appealed the order restricting her and their children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District, arguing it was an abuse of discretion, against the children's best interest, and an unconstitutional infringement on her parental rights, primarily due to economic motives to relocate to Lafayette, Louisiana. The court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering various factors like the reasons for the move, impact on extended family, and visitation with the non-custodial parent. Ultimately, the appellate court found that the trial court had sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the restriction was in the children's best interest. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Donna's constitutional challenge.

Child CustodyResidency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionParental RightsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process ClauseTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Daubney

The New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) sought to compel the trustee of a testamentary trust to use trust income for the daily care of beneficiary Paul Kemp, who resides in a State-operated facility. The trust, established by Kemp's mother, directed income expenditure for 'clothing, comforts and luxuries' but explicitly protected the principal from state claims for living expenses. The court ruled that while the trustee had no discretion over whether to expend income for these specified purposes, they had discretion in determining reasonable requirements. The court interpreted 'clothing, comforts and luxuries' as items not provided by the State for basic support. Consequently, the court found that the trustee's refusal to apply income for OMRDD's daily care charges was not an abuse of discretion, thereby denying OMRDD's request. The trustee was also ordered to file an accounting and explain the 'Paul Kemp luxury fund'.

Testamentary TrustTrust IncomeBeneficiary CareState ReimbursementWill InterpretationTrustee DiscretionMental Hygiene LawEstate LawFiduciary ResponsibilityInstitutionalized Individuals
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyster Co. v. Lawrence

Justice BASS dissents from the majority's decision, which concluded that Hyster had good cause to believe a suit was imminent during its investigation and conditionally granted a writ of mandamus. The dissenting opinion argues that the majority improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court, failing to adhere to the abuse of discretion standard appropriate for mandamus review. The dissent emphasizes that the trial judge was confronted with a close question regarding whether the impounding of parts, coupled with other circumstances, unambiguously constituted an "outward manifestation" of imminent litigation. Citing precedent from cases like *Flores*, *American Home Assurance Co. v. Cooper*, and *Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals*, Justice BASS asserts that neither a worker's compensation claim, nor notification by claimant's attorney, nor severe injuries alone, signify imminent litigation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's decision, being within its discretion and not arbitrary or capricious, should have been upheld.

MandamusAbuse of DiscretionDiscoveryAnticipation of LitigationWorker's Compensation ClaimTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewGood CauseEvidence BurdenDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Lucas & City of Buffalo

The case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed two arbitration awards. The arbitration awards stemmed from violations of a collective bargaining agreement by the respondents, who ignored a binding past practice concerning the right of first refusal for acting-time positions. Specifically, the awards directed payment to Donald Mackowiak and Ronald French for lost wages and overtime. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the respondents' contentions that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2) or public policy. The court found that the awards did not compel the respondents to violate the Civil Service Law, noting their discretion in defining acting-time positions and the temporary nature of the appointments. It also concluded that the damages awarded were not speculative and that the limitation on employer discretion was permissible due to established past practice and the CBA, which constituted a conscious waiver of discretion.

Arbitration LawCollective BargainingCivil Service EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionEmployment RightsSeniority RightsJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeWage DisputeOut-of-Title Work
References
7
Case No. C-5672, E-2429, C-5878
Regular Panel Decision

Buffalo United Charter School v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Petitioners, consisting of Buffalo United Charter School, Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, and National Heritage Academies, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge and annul a February 14, 2011 decision by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The PERB decision asserted jurisdiction over the charter schools, rejected National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preemption claims, and determined that assistant principals were neither managerial nor confidential employees. Petitioners contended that PERB lacked jurisdiction due to its joint public-private employment doctrine, that the NLRA preempted PERB's authority, and that PERB erroneously found the assistant principals lacked managerial or confidential status. They also argued the PERB decision unconstitutionally impaired their contractual rights. The court largely upheld PERB's jurisdiction, ruling that the Charter Schools Act superseded PERB's joint public-private employment doctrine and denying the NLRA preemption claim. However, the court annulled PERB's determination regarding the managerial and confidential status of assistant principals at Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School, reinstating the Administrative Law Judge's original finding on that specific issue.

Charter SchoolsPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Taylor LawNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)JurisdictionJoint Public-Private Employment DoctrineManagerial EmployeesConfidential EmployeesCollective BargainingCPLR Article 78
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,203 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