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

TRANSPORT WKRS. U. OF AMERICA v. Argentine Airlines

The Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) sued Argentine Airlines for injunctive relief, alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act regarding bargaining obligations. TWU objected to the Company's proposal to exclude specific job classifications from contract coverage. The court analyzed whether the proposal constituted a mandatory or non-mandatory subject of bargaining and if the Company unlawfully insisted on it to the point of impasse. The court determined the proposal was a non-mandatory bargaining subject but found no evidence that the Company insisted upon it to impasse, having shown flexibility and modified its demands during negotiations. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief was denied.

labour lawcollective bargainingRailway Labor ActRLANational Labor Relations ActNLRAmandatory bargaining subjectsnon-mandatory bargaining subjectsimpasseinjunctive relief
References
30
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwald v. Axelrod (In Re Greenwald)

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health sought relief from an automatic stay in a Chapter 11 liquidation case to complete administrative proceedings concerning the debtor's medicaid reimbursement entitlements. The debtor, Sidney Greenwald d/b/a Maple Leaf Nursing Home, opposed the application, arguing the state's interest was pecuniary, not regulatory, thus precluding the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exception. The court found that the Commissioner's interest was indeed pecuniary, aiming to recoup approximately $911,500 in medicaid overpayments, and thus the regulatory exception did not apply. However, considering that the debtor's nursing home was sold, no patients were at risk, and the case was a liquidation, the court granted the relief from the stay, allowing the administrative appeals to conclude, with any enforcement subject to the bankruptcy court's review of the developed administrative record.

Automatic StayBankruptcyChapter 11Medicaid ReimbursementGovernmental Regulatory PowerPecuniary InterestAdministrative ProceedingsLiquidation CaseAudit AppealsNew York State Department of Health
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbo-Bradley v. City of Niagara Falls

Three families residing near the Love Canal Landfill initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court, Niagara County, seeking damages and equitable relief for personal injuries and property damage caused by alleged releases of toxic chemicals. The case was subsequently removed to federal court under original federal jurisdiction pursuant to CERCLA. Defendant Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to establish a discovery protocol, requesting prior notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for split samples during plaintiffs' environmental sampling activities. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, citing jurisdictional concerns, work product, and attorney-client privileges. The court, asserting its authority to maintain the status quo pending a remand decision, rejected the privilege claims and found that spoliation concerns warranted the injunction. Consequently, the court granted GSH's motion, enjoining plaintiffs from further environmental sampling without providing 96-hour written notice, contemporaneous access, and the opportunity for all parties to take split samples.

Environmental LitigationCERCLAPreliminary InjunctionDiscovery ProtocolSpoliation of EvidenceWork Product DoctrineAttorney-Client PrivilegeLove CanalToxic WasteHazardous Materials
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. 196-1545-260
Regular Panel Decision

Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp. v. Grace/Lansing & Grace Industries, Inc. (In Re Montague Pipeline Technologies Corp.)

The case involves a motion by Grace-Lansing and Grace Industries, Inc. (Grace) to remand an adversary proceeding back to the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, and for relief from an automatic stay. The Debtor, Montague Pipeline Technologies, Inc., had removed the action, which concerned the confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Grace, after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Court, presided over by Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein, applied the 'Drexel factors' to evaluate the request for remand, concluding that equitable grounds favored sending the action back to state court due to efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate, predominance of state law, and comity. The Court also granted Grace's motion for relief from the automatic stay, finding 'cause' based on the 'Sonnax factors,' to allow the state court to finalize the arbitration award and fix Grace's claim, thereby facilitating the Debtor's reorganization plan.

BankruptcyRemandAutomatic StayArbitration AwardState LawFederal Arbitration ActJudicial EconomyComityChapter 11Dispute Resolution
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2010

Mattina v. Ardsley Bus Corp.

This case involves Celeste J. Mattina, Regional Director for Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board, seeking temporary injunctive relief against Ardsley Bus Corp. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The General Counsel alleged that Ardsley engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Transport Workers Union and making unilateral changes to employment terms. The court reviewed the administrative record, found reasonable cause to believe Ardsley committed these unfair labor practices, and determined that temporary injunctive relief is just and proper to prevent irreparable harm and restore the status quo. The injunction requires Ardsley to cease various unfair labor practices and to bargain in good faith with the Union.

Temporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion DecertificationRefusal to BargainUnilateral ChangesEmployee RightsStatus Quo AnteInjunctive Relief
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Doar

This case concerns a public assistance recipient's challenge against the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) for its practices related to work activity requirements. The petitioner, a full-time employed individual, repeatedly faced penalties due to mandatory HRA appointments conflicting with his known work schedule. The court found HRA's practices unlawful, ruling that the agency failed to accommodate known work schedules, improperly denied representation at conciliation appointments, and issued punitive notices without adequate case record review. The court granted declaratory and injunctive relief, compelling HRA to adjust scheduling, permit representatives, and conduct thorough reviews before imposing sanctions. However, it denied further injunctive relief that would exempt full-time employed recipients from all work activity appointments.

Public AssistanceWork RequirementsNon-compliance PenaltyDue ProcessAdministrative LawInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentSocial Services LawHRAOTDA
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Paterson

This decision addresses a lawsuit filed by residents and voters in New York's 29th Congressional District against Governor David A. Paterson. The plaintiffs sought to compel the Governor to call a special election sooner to fill a House of Representatives vacancy, which arose after Congressman Eric J. Massa's resignation on March 9, 2010. The Governor had announced his intention to issue a proclamation for a special election in October, to be held on November 2, 2010, coinciding with the general election. While the Court affirmed the Governor's mandatory duty under Article I, § 2, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution to issue a writ of election, it denied the plaintiffs' request for a mandatory injunction to accelerate the election. The Court found that the Governor exercised reasonable discretion in timing the special election, citing logistical, financial, and HAVA compliance concerns. The motion for injunctive and declaratory relief was granted in part and denied in part, declaring the Governor's duty but upholding his discretion on the timing within certain limits.

Special ElectionCongressional VacancyGovernor's DiscretionWrit of ElectionDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefArticle I Section 2 Clause 4Public Officers LawHAVA ComplianceConstitutional Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,258 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