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. 02 Civ. 4286, 02 Civ. 4297
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Buttar

Petitioners David Jacaruso, Joseph Scotti, and Michael E. Wallace moved to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of respondents Daljit S. Buttar and Par-amit Buttar. The Buttars cross-moved to confirm the award. The arbitration, conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), found the petitioners liable for misrepresentation, unauthorized trading, and fraud, and also as 'Control Persons,' jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court, applying standards of 'manifest disregard of the law' and 'manifest disregard of the facts,' found that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by imposing respondeat superior liability on the petitioners for actions of a broker and by finding fraud liability without evidence of intent. Furthermore, the court found the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and facts regarding control person liability. Consequently, the court granted the petitioners' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the respondents' cross-motion to confirm it.

arbitrationvacaturconfirmationsecurities fraudcontrol person liabilitymanifest disregard of lawmanifest disregard of factsNASD arbitrationpunitive damagesrespondeat superior
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the vacatur of an arbitration award. Wien & Malkin LLP sought to remove Helmsley-Spear, Inc. as managing agent for several New York City properties. An arbitration panel denied Wien & Malkin's request, which was initially confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, after a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, vacated the arbitration award, finding a 'manifest disregard of law' by the arbitrators regarding personal services contracts and proxy voting. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's decision under the 'manifest disregard of law' standard, which requires a showing that arbitrators knew and ignored a well-defined legal principle. The Court of Appeals found that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law in its conclusions regarding Helmsley-Spear as a valid successor, the proxy vote, or the voting agreement. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the original Supreme Court judgment confirming the arbitration award was reinstated.

Arbitration LawManifest Disregard of LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawPersonal Services ContractsPartnership LawSuccessor in InterestProxy VotingAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
28
Case No. NO. 09-18-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Conn Appliances, Inc. v. Richard Puente

Conn Appliances, Inc. appealed a trial court's order that vacated an arbitration award in favor of Richard Puente and declared Conn's arbitration agreement void. Puente, an appliance repairman for Conn's (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act), was injured and sued Conn's for negligence. After agreeing to arbitration, an arbitrator awarded Puente $60,000 but considered his contributory actions. Puente sought to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by applying contributory negligence principles. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Puente waived his Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exemption argument and that 'manifest disregard of the law' is not an independent ground for vacatur under the FAA post-Hall Street. Furthermore, Puente failed to prove manifest disregard or fraud. The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Arbitration AgreementVacaturManifest Disregard of LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas Workers' Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerNegligencePersonal InjuryWaiverFraud
References
47
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lightwave Communications, LLC v. Verizon Services Corp.

Lightwave Communications, LLC petitioned the court to vacate parts of an arbitration award against Verizon Services Corp. for billing inaccuracies, citing manifest disregard of federal law by the arbitrator. Verizon moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the parties were non-diverse, federal law did not create Lightwave's cause of action, and the motion did not raise a substantial federal question. The court, presided over by Judge Rakoff, examined Lightwave's claims that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded federal telecommunications laws (47 U.S.C. §§ 201, 202, 251, 252). The court found that Lightwave's examples did not demonstrate a "key part" or "substantial" federal question to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, Verizon's motion to dismiss was granted, and a previously issued temporary injunction against Verizon was dissolved.

Federal Arbitration ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionArbitration Award VacaturTelecommunications BillingInterconnection AgreementManifest Disregard of LawMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(1)Second Circuit Precedent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acciardo v. Millennium Securities Corp.

Raymond J. Acciardo, the Petitioner-Respondent, sought confirmation of an arbitration award granted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. The award compensated Acciardo for wrongful discharge and defamation, including punitive damages against Millennium Securities Corporation and its senior management. Respondents-Cross-Petitioners Millennium, Todd Rome, Richard A. Sitomer, and Pamela L. Rockley petitioned to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the law concerning Form U-5 immunity and excessive punitive damages. The Court, presided over by Judge Batts in the Southern District of New York, upheld the arbitration award. It found no manifest disregard of the law, citing conflicting legal precedents on U-5 immunity and affirming the arbitrators' finding of malice and authority to award punitive damages.

Arbitration AwardConfirmationVacaturFederal Arbitration ActEmployment TerminationDefamationForm U-5Qualified PrivilegePunitive DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
34
Case No. 01-07-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2009

AllStyle Coil Company, L.P. v. Roberto Carreon

Roberto Carreon, an employee of Allstyle Coil Company, L.P., sustained leg injuries from wet concrete and subsequently sued his employer for negligence. Allstyle Coil, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Worker’s Compensation system, moved to compel arbitration, which resulted in an award of approximately $217,000 to Carreon. Allstyle Coil appealed the trial court's judgment confirming the arbitration award, contending the arbitrator exceeded his authority and manifestly disregarded the law. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that 'manifest disregard of the law' is no longer a valid non-statutory ground for vacating an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court also found that Allstyle Coil failed to demonstrate the arbitrator exceeded his authority, primarily due to the absence of the arbitration agreement in the appellate record.

TexasArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActVacaturManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewEmployer NegligenceWorker InjuryNonsubscriberScope of Authority
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Odeon Capital Group, LLC v. Ackerman

This opinion and order by Judge Jed S. Rakoff addresses cross-motions to vacate and confirm a FINRA arbitration award. An arbitration panel awarded Bret Ackerman $1,102,193 against Odeon Capital Group, LLC, Mathew Van Alstyne, and Evan Schwartzberg for unpaid wages. Petitioners sought to vacate the award, alleging arbitrator misconduct in evidentiary rulings and manifest disregard of the law regarding damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, and attempted to amend their petition to include fraud. The Court denied the petition to vacate, finding no violation of fundamental fairness or manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators, and also denied the application to amend the petition, ruling that any alleged perjury was not material. Consequently, the Court granted Ackerman's cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award and awarded costs but denied attorneys' fees for the current proceeding.

Arbitration AwardFINRA ArbitrationVacaturConfirmationUnpaid WagesArbitrator MisconductManifest Disregard of LawAttorneys' FeesPrejudgment InterestFederal Arbitration Act
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 17,219 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