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. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Spence v. Shah

In this appeal, petitioners, including the Public Employees Federation and four registered nurses, challenged regulations by the New York Department of Health (DOH) mandating that unvaccinated healthcare personnel wear masks during influenza season. They contended that DOH acted arbitrarily, exceeded its authority, and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the petition, finding that DOH acted within its broad delegated authority to preserve public health. The court determined that the regulations were supported by scientific evidence and were neither arbitrary nor irrational, thus upholding the mask-wearing requirement. The judgment was modified to partially convert the matter to a declaratory judgment action.

Public Health RegulationsMandatory MaskingHealthcare Worker VaccinationAdministrative Law ChallengeDelegation of PowerSeparation of Powers DoctrineArbitrary and Capricious ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentInfluenza Prevention
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korean American Nail Salon Ass'n of New York, Inc. v. Cuomo

This case involves a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action brought by two trade groups representing Korean and Chinese owned nail salons in New York State. Petitioners sought to vacate the September 4, 2015 emergency rule by the NYS Department of State (DOS), which mandated wage bonds, and challenged the August 7, 2015 certification by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) that wage coverage was 'readily available.' These actions followed state investigations into wage violations in nail salons and new legislation aimed at protecting workers in the industry. The court ultimately rejected all of petitioners' arguments, finding no arbitrary action by the DFS, sufficient statutory authority, and proper justification for the emergency rule under the State Administrative Procedure Act. Claims of due process and equal protection violations were also dismissed, as the court determined the legislation served a legitimate state interest in worker protection. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and injunctive relief was denied.

wage bond mandatenail salon industryCPLR Article 78declaratory judgmentemergency regulationState Administrative Procedure Actdue processequal protectionworker protectionregulatory challenge
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. 14-01-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2003

Lawrence Madeksho, Roy and Mary Malone, Thomas Gillespie, and Patricia Garefalos v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Friend, Robert Ballard and the Law Office of Robert E. Ballard, P.C.

The dissenting opinion argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to apportion attorney fees post-mandate, as the issue was not originally litigated and the appellate mandate did not grant such authority. It further contends that an interpleader action is improper after a final judgment, challenging the majority's equitable justifications by highlighting that the judgment debtor's obligation was solely to the judgment creditors. The dissent emphasizes strict adherence to jurisdictional limits and appellate mandates to maintain legal certainty and prevent endless litigation.

JurisdictionAppellate MandateAttorney FeesInterpleaderFinal JudgmentTrial Court AuthorityEn Banc ReviewDissenting OpinionCollateral AttackLegal Certainty
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State School Boards Ass'n v. Sobol

Judge Titone's dissenting opinion argues that regulations by the Commissioner of the State Education Department, mandating the inclusion of religious representatives on AIDS education advisory committees, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Applying the Lemon test, the dissent contends that this requirement has the primary effect of favoring and endorsing religion by granting religious groups unique access to governmental decision-making and sending a message that non-adherents are outsiders. The dissent rejects the majority's argument that such a mandate fosters societal consensus, stating that it instead exploits religion's "borrowed aura of legitimacy" and risks violating denominational neutrality. It concludes that mandating religious participation represents a forbidden endorsement of religion and is inimical to the First Amendment's goal of preventing the intrusion of church into state.

Establishment ClauseFirst AmendmentAIDS EducationReligious RepresentationAdvisory CommitteesGovernment NeutralityLemon TestConstitutional LawSeparation of Church and StateEducational Policy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chemical Lime, Ltd.

Justice Willett concurs with the Court's judgment, agreeing that the Edwards Aquifer Authority became effective as per the Bar-shop opinion date. However, he emphasizes the unresolved fundamental legal question concerning when an appellate-court judgment becomes final and takes effect, which he believes warrants the Court's rulemaking attention. He argues that the mandate, rather than the opinion's issuance, should generally be considered the definitive date for a judgment's finality and enforceability, citing various rules and statutes that link finality to the mandate's issuance. Willett contrasts his view with arguments that judgments are effective upon issuance, highlighting the period before a mandate issues during which the court can still modify its decision. He concludes by reiterating his agreement with the Court's outcome in the present case but advocates for clear guidelines on judgment finality through the rulemaking process.

Appellate ProcedureJudgment FinalityMandateConcurring OpinionEdwards Aquifer Authority ActSupersedeasDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionTexas Supreme CourtLegal Practice
References
18
Case No. 13-CV-1459, 13-cv-0303
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses challenges brought by six New York-area Roman Catholic affiliated organizations against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive coverage mandate. Plaintiffs argued the mandate, even with accommodations, substantially burdened their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The court distinguished between "Diocesan plaintiffs" (exempt) and "non-Diocesan plaintiffs" (non-exempt). Summary judgment was granted for the non-Diocesan plaintiffs on their RFRA claims, finding a substantial burden and that the government failed to use the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling interest. Conversely, summary judgment was granted for the defendants against the Diocesan plaintiffs, as their exempt status meant no substantial burden on their religious exercise. An injunction was issued against enforcing the mandate on non-Diocesan plaintiffs.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActACA Contraception MandateReligious Non-ProfitsFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseSummary JudgmentInjunctionHealth Care LawConstitutional ChallengeReligious Exemptions
References
60
Case No. 01-18-00863-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

Charles Lee Farris, Jr. v. State

This dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of a conviction for murder, an "Old Code felony crime," on the grounds that the appellant was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The dissenting judge asserts that Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution provides an absolute mandate for a speedy public trial by an impartial jury in all criminal prosecutions, a mandate that has been consistently overlooked by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The opinion delves into the historical context of this provision, tracing its origins to the 1836 Texas Declaration of Rights and highlighting the framers' intent to protect individual liberties against governmental overreach, particularly contrasting with Mexican civil law. It critiques the legislative and judicial expansion of jury trial waivers, arguing they defy the clear constitutional requirement for Old Code felony prosecutions. The dissent concludes that, given the specific mandate for such cases, the appellant's conviction should be reversed and remanded for a jury trial.

Criminal ProsecutionJury Trial RightsTexas Constitutional LawOld Code FeloniesDissenting OpinionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessLegal InterpretationCriminal ProcedureWaiver of Jury Trial
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polmanteer v. Bobo

Justice Gorski's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Education Law § 2023 (1) concerning the funding of 'ordinary contingent expenses' in school district contingency budgets. The dissent contends that the 1997 amendment, which replaced 'may' with 'shall,' mandates the inclusion of expenses for interschool athletics, field trips, and other extracurricular activities when a budget is rejected by voters. Gorski disagrees with the majority's view that 'shall' applies only to the adoption of the contingency budget and levy, asserting it also mandates the inclusion of the enumerated expenses. The dissent emphasizes that the plain language of the statute, reflecting clear legislative intent, should be respected, even if it alters historical discretion given to boards of education. While concurring with some aspects of the majority's decision, Gorski believes the court erred in mandating a 'pro rata' inclusion of disputed items, advocating for the inclusion of previously deemed necessary funds subject to statutory limitations.

Education LawContingency BudgetSchool FundingStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionOrdinary Contingent ExpensesInterschool AthleticsExtracurricular ActivitiesLegislative IntentMandatory Funding
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,277 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