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. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Miller

District Judge Frankel's memorandum addresses the sentencing of four former postal employees for stealing mail, lamenting the lack of public awareness for such routine criminal cases. The judge aims to invite notice to mail embezzlement to foster general deterrence, particularly among other postal workers. Despite acknowledging the defendants' non-evil nature and meager incomes, the memorandum emphasizes that their deliberate and repetitive crimes resulted in job loss, public disgrace, and sentences of confinement and supervised probation. This stricter approach signals a departure from past leniency, intending to underscore the serious consequences of violating public trust and to serve as a strong warning against future mail theft.

Mail theftEmbezzlementSentencingGeneral deterrenceJudicial discretionPostal employeesCriminal lawFederal courtJudicial memorandumProbation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. City of Clarksville, Tenn.

This case addresses the City of Clarksville's motion for summary judgment against 34 firefighter plaintiffs concerning the exclusion of meal and sleep periods from compensable time. The core issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was whether these employees, hired after the compensation policy began, impliedly agreed to the exclusion. The Court previously upheld the City's actions under Tennessee law and the validity of the extended shifts. This memorandum finds that most plaintiffs' delayed objections, and all plaintiffs' continued employment and acceptance of pay, constituted an implied agreement to the existing terms. Consequently, the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment against all designated plaintiffs.

Summary JudgmentFair Labor Standards ActFirefighters CompensationMeal and Sleep Time ExclusionImplied AgreementEmployment LawWage and Hour DisputePublic Sector EmploymentLabor DisputeEmployee Grievances
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. General Electric Co.

This memorandum addresses defendants' motions for summary judgment in a case brought by former 3M employees, Coleman and Bruce, who were subsequently hired by GE after 3M sold its Technical Ceramics Division. Plaintiffs alleged that 3M and GE misrepresented employee benefits, breached fiduciary duties under ERISA, and that a two-year no-rehire agreement between 3M and GE violated antitrust laws. The Court analyzed claims regarding severance pay, general ERISA violations, and the antitrust agreement. Ultimately, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on all asserted causes of action, concluding that no fiduciary duty existed for GE, 3M's actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and the no-rehire agreement did not constitute an antitrust violation.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayAntitrustSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyMisrepresentationEmployment LawPreemptionFederal Common Law
References
53
Case No. Docket No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. University of Tennessee

This memorandum addresses the defendant University of Tennessee's (UT) Motion to Dismiss claims brought by several plaintiffs, Jane Does I-VIII, alleging Title IX violations. The plaintiffs claim UT fostered a sexually hostile environment and inadequately responded to sexual assaults by male UT athletes. The court found that "before" claims, which seek to hold UT liable for the actual assaults based on official policy or deliberate indifference to prior incidents, could proceed. However, Jane Doe I's "before" claim was dismissed as time-barred. The court also allowed Jane Doe V's Title IX retaliation claim and the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief to proceed, finding they had standing and had pled their request with sufficient specificity.

Title IXSexual AssaultRetaliationUniversity LiabilityCampus SafetyStudent AthletesDeliberate IndifferenceHostile EnvironmentMotion to DismissStatute of Limitations
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1974

Alexander v. AVCO CORP.-AERO. S. DIV., NASHVILLE, TENN.

This memorandum opinion outlines the court's structured relief to remedy past discriminatory practices by defendant Avco. The court grants individual relief to plaintiffs Robert F. Newman, Ramsey Alexander, and Raymond L. Dennis, including re-employment, seniority adjustments, and back wages. It also mandates general relief procedures for Avco, focusing on updated application processes, job posting, and bid procedures for black employees, along with an extended trial period for black transferees and a detailed grievance process. The court denies the case as a class action due to lack of notice but allows approximately fifty-two affected black employees to intervene. Attorneys' fees are also awarded to the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationIndividual ReliefClass Action DenialIntervention RightsBack PaySeniority AdjustmentReinstatementGrievance ProceduresAffirmative Action
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Schreiber Foods, Inc.

This memorandum addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by Schreiber Foods, Inc. against its former plant employees. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), claiming unpaid wages for time spent donning and doffing uniforms, sanitizing boots, and pre/post-shift travel and waiting. The court, presided over by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, granted the defendant's motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court ruled that time spent changing into uniforms is non-compensable under a collective-bargaining agreement, but claims regarding boot sanitization and pre/post-shift travel/waiting time will proceed, pending a determination of their integral nature and whether the time involved is de minimis.

Fair Labor Standards ActCollective ActionSummary JudgmentDonning and DoffingPortal-to-Portal ActCompensable TimeUnpaid WagesUniformsSanitary RequirementsCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloom v. General Electric Supply Co.

This memorandum addresses a wrongful discharge action brought by plaintiff Elizabeth Gettys Bloom against her former employer, General Electric Supply Company. Bloom alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of the Tennessee Fair Employment Practices Law and public policy, after she was terminated due to her husband accepting employment with a competitor. The defendant filed for partial summary judgment, which the court partially granted and partially denied. The court granted summary judgment regarding the common law employment at will doctrine, finding it lacked a constitutional or statutory basis for a public policy exception in this context. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claim that the discharge violated Tennessee's statutory policy against restraint of trade (T.C.A. § 47-25-101), allowing this issue to proceed to trial.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment At WillPublic Policy ExceptionRestraint of TradeConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTennessee LawAntitrust ConcernsRetaliatory DischargeInterspousal Employment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lawrence

This memorandum addresses the trustee's objection to a debtor's claim of exemption for $140,000 in accounts receivable under Tenn. Code Ann. § 26-2-106. The debtor, a podiatrist, argued that the state statute, which limits garnishment of earnings, constitutes an exemption recognizable in bankruptcy. The trustee contended that the statute only limits garnishment outside bankruptcy and that the accounts receivable do not qualify as "earnings." The court analyzed the Tennessee garnishment statute and its federal counterpart, the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA), concluding that neither was intended to create a general wage exemption in bankruptcy. The court found that the statute primarily regulates the process of garnishment in the hands of a third party, rather than permanently sequestering funds from creditors within a bankruptcy proceeding. Consequently, the court sustained the trustee's objection, denying the debtor's claim of exemption.

Bankruptcy LawExemption ClaimGarnishment StatuteAccounts ReceivableDisposable EarningsTennessee State LawFederal Bankruptcy CodeConsumer Credit Protection ActStatutory InterpretationDebtor-Creditor Relationship
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moritt v. Governor of New York

This memorandum decision addresses the constitutionality of New York State Election Law, specifically subdivision 5 of section 136 and subdivision 2 of section 131, which pertain to geographical distribution requirements for signatures needed to place a candidate on a primary ballot. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the State may constitutionally mandate a showing of state-wide support without imposing a substantial burden on primary ballot access. The requirement of 100 signatures from each of 20 Congressional districts was deemed not unconstitutionally onerous, serving the legitimate state interest of preventing ballot manipulation and ensuring broad-based numerical and geographical support. The decision also found no merit in the challenge to subdivision 2 of section 131 of the Election Law, asserting it does not violate the one man-one vote principle or the New York State Constitution.

ConstitutionalityElection LawPrimary BallotSignature RequirementsGeographical DistributionEqual ProtectionOne Man-One VoteBallot AccessState InterestPolitical Candidate
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,582 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