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

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sandhu v. Sandhu

Justice Weinstein dissents in part and concurs in part regarding a divorce judgment. The memorandum argues that the evidence presented by the plaintiff husband for cruel and inhuman treatment was insufficient to warrant a divorce in his favor, especially considering the 15-year marriage, the wife's financial dependency, and acts of provocation by the husband and his mother. Conversely, the justice finds that the defendant wife presented sufficient evidence of the husband's cruel and inhuman treatment, including physical assaults and verbal abuse, entitling her to a divorce on her counterclaim. The memorandum recommends modifying the judgment to grant the wife's counterclaim for divorce and remitting the matter for alimony proceedings. It concurs with the trial court's decision to award custody of the three minor children to the husband, based on a psychiatric social worker's recommendation and the children's expressed preference, while ensuring liberal visitation rights for the wife.

DivorceCruel and Inhuman TreatmentAlimonyChild CustodyDomestic Relations LawMarital MisconductProvocationAppellate ReviewSpousal SupportLong-Term Marriage
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. City of New York

This concurring memorandum addresses a personal injury action brought by plaintiffs Lang and Pokorny against defendant Lawrence and municipal defendants following a severe automobile accident. The jury initially apportioned culpability and awarded damages, but a dispute arose regarding a no-fault carrier's lien on the plaintiffs' recovery. Special Term had vacated this lien. Judge O'Connor concurs with the majority's decision to reverse the judgment and grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages. This reversal is based on the trial court's improper exclusion of evidence concerning plaintiffs' basic economic loss against the municipal defendants, who were not considered "covered" persons under the relevant insurance act. Furthermore, the memorandum delves into the broader legal principle of insurance liens, arguing that such liens should attach to any recovery, not just basic economic loss, drawing parallels between the Insurance Law and the Workers' Compensation Law.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LienBasic Economic LossWorkers' Compensation Law ParallelDamages AssessmentNew TrialReversal of JudgmentConcurring Opinion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of New York Higher Education Services Corp. v. Zamore

Judge Meyer concurs, noting that the Legislature has the power to revive a claim even if it is barred by limitations, citing several precedents. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, and Simons all concur with the decision to affirm the order, with Judge Meyer also providing a separate concurring memorandum in which Judge Jasen joins.

Limitations PeriodLegislative AuthorityClaim RevivalConcurring OpinionJudicial PrecedentAffirmed Order
References
4
Case No. 146
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. McCrudden

This Memorandum and Order addresses two supervised release violations by Vincent McCrudden. Charge 4 alleged McCrudden associated with known felons, which the court found proven through letters and phone calls, determining that face-to-face contact is not a prerequisite for association. Charge 5 asserted McCrudden made materially false statements to his probation officer by denying contact with felons. The court ruled these falsehoods were material because they impaired the officer's ability to monitor and make informed decisions about McCrudden's compliance. Both charges were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

supervised release violationassociation with felonsfalse statementsmaterialityprobation officercriminal activitySecond Circuit precedentfederal law18 U.S.C. 1001preponderance of evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Journal Register Co.

The Journal Register Company and 26 affiliates, referred to as the Debtors, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This Memorandum of Opinion addresses objections to the confirmation of their Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. Key objections were raised by unsecured creditors and minority shareholders regarding a 'gift' distribution to certain trade creditors and an employee incentive plan. The Court, after reviewing the arguments, upheld the 'gift doctrine' as applied and found the incentive plan reasonable, ultimately overruling all objections. The plan was deemed feasible and compliant with the best interests test, leading to its confirmation.

BankruptcyChapter 11Plan of ReorganizationUnsecured CreditorsSecured LendersGift DoctrineCramdownFeasibilityBest Interests TestAbsolute Priority Rule
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lámar v. Barnhart

This Memorandum and Order addresses Christopher Lamar's appeal to review the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by not giving controlling weight to Lamar's treating physicians' opinions, instead relying on a state agency doctor's report that was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. The court criticized the ALJ's disregard for the overwhelming evidence of disability. Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision, granted Lamar's motion for outright reversal, and remanded the case solely for the computation of benefits.

Social Security DisabilityAdministrative Law Judge ErrorTreating Physician RuleSubstantial Evidence StandardMedical Opinion WeightChronic Pain SyndromeSpinal InjuriesPost-Concussion SyndromeDisability Insurance BenefitsJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,740 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