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

Michaels v. Hillman

This judicial opinion by Rodenbeck, J. addresses the modification of a temporary injunction order. The judge found that the fourth paragraph of the injunction, which broadly restrained the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America from 'in any way' interfering with the plaintiffs' business, was too encompassing. The language is to be refined to specify interference 'by any of the acts or things herein restrained' to permit lawful union activities, such as striking, which are considered legal rights. However, the rest of the injunction, prohibiting specific actions like assault, intimidation, loitering, using abusive names, publishing false statements, and inducing contract breaches, was upheld as reasonable. The court underscored that while labor organizations can use lawful means to advance their members' interests, they cannot conspire or act solely to harm others or engage in activities that could lead to a breach of public peace or interfere with existing contracts.

InjunctionLabor DisputeStrikeCoercionIntimidationPicketingBoycottingContract InterferencePublic PeaceUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Compressed Air, Foundation, Tunnel, Caisson, Subway, Cofferdam, Sewer Construction Workers, Local No. 147 of New York, New Jersey States & Vicinity

The Regional Director of the Second District of the National Labor Relations Board sought an injunction against a labor organization (the Union) under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Director believed the Union violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively and failing to provide proper notice for modification or termination of an existing collective bargaining agreement with Andrew Catapano Co., Inc. and Grow Construction Co., Inc. (C-G). The Union ceased work on a sewer construction project in Brooklyn, New York, arguing negotiations concerned a future contract, not modification of the current one. District Judge Bartels found reasonable cause to believe the work stoppage stemmed from a dispute over modifying an existing agreement without proper notice, constituting an unfair labor practice. The petition for injunction was granted, and a motion to amend the petition to include termination violation was also granted.

National Labor Relations ActInjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingContract ModificationContract TerminationWork StoppageLabor DisputeRegional Director NLRBSection 10(j)
References
8
Case No. Docket No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc.

The plaintiffs, a subclass of retirees and surviving spouses from Caterpillar Logistics Services (CLS), filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Caterpillar, Inc. They sought to enjoin Caterpillar from charging premiums and making other modifications to their retiree health care benefits, arguing they had a vested right to no-cost benefits under the 1988 Group Insurance Plan (GIP) and the CLS Agreement. The court found the CLS Agreement extended the 1988 labor contract for the subclass, providing vested lifetime no-cost retiree benefits, and that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm from rising medical costs. Concluding that the factors weighed heavily in favor of the plaintiffs and rejecting Caterpillar's affirmative defenses, the court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering Caterpillar to provide the CLS subclass with the same level of retiree healthcare as pre-1992 retirees, without premiums or new deductibles/co-pays.

Preliminary InjunctionRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Contract InterpretationEquitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsCaterpillar Logistics Services (CLS)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union

American Airlines sought a preliminary injunction against the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), its officers, and members, to prevent a threatened strike. The dispute stemmed from a proposed merger between American Airlines and Eastern Air Lines, which the TWU vigorously opposed, demanding absolute guarantees for job security and seniority for its 34,000 employees. The union issued public telegrams threatening a strike and scheduled a meeting to set an effective strike date. The court determined that the union's failure to utilize the dispute resolution machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act, before threatening a strike, constituted a basis for injunction. Concluding that such a strike would cause irreparable damage to American Airlines and significantly impact national transportation and defense, the court granted the preliminary injunction.

StrikePreliminary InjunctionMergerAirline IndustryLabor DisputeRailway Labor ActJob SecuritySeniorityUnion ProtestCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Blyer v. STATEN ISLAND CABLE LLC.

Petitioner, Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of Region 29 of the National Labor Relations Board, sought a preliminary injunction against respondents Time Warner Cable and Local 3. The injunction aimed to prevent the enforcement of Section 7 of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which the petitioner argued constituted an improper 'union signatory' agreement, violating Section 8(e) of the NLRA. This section limited Time Warner's ability to subcontract work only to companies that had agreements with Local 3. The court found reasonable cause to believe that Section 7 had an improper secondary purpose, dictating the labor policies of non-signatory entities like Advantage Cable, rather than genuinely preserving work for the bargaining unit. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, enjoining the respondents from enforcing the contested provisions of Section 7 of the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion Signatory AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionNLRA Section 8(e)NLRA Section 10(l)Work PreservationSecondary ObjectiveSubcontractingLabor Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Fashion Headquarters, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought a preliminary injunction against Fashion Headquarters and its President, Paul Cascio, for violating the "hot goods" provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1). The defendants were accused of transporting or selling goods produced by contractors who failed to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. The court found that the Secretary successfully demonstrated irreparable harm would ensue without an injunction and showed a clear likelihood of success on the merits, referencing the defendants' history of non-compliance and unreliability. Although the court granted the preliminary injunction, it determined that the Secretary's proposed terms were overly broad. Consequently, a narrower injunction was issued, mandating that the defendants implement steps to ensure contractor compliance with the FLSA, including verifying adherence, reviewing payroll records, obtaining written assurances, and promptly reporting any violations to the Department of Labor.

FLSAHot GoodsPreliminary InjunctionMinimum WageOvertimeContractor LiabilityUnfair CompetitionLabor Law ViolationsEquitable ReliefJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1969

Heldman v. Douglas

The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted a preliminary injunction against defendants Douglas and Stingo in an action for an injunction and money damages. The preliminary injunction was based on a non-compete covenant in a distributor's agreement between Heldman Catering Co., Inc. and the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this order, denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found the preliminary injunction improvidently granted because the covenant was unenforceable due to Heldman Catering Co., Inc. discontinuing business, there was substantial doubt regarding the agreement's authenticity, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defendants' conduct was enjoinable, as the business knowledge utilized was publicly available.

InjunctionNon-compete clausePreliminary injunctionDistributor agreementContract lawAbuse of discretionCovenant not to competeBusiness discontinuationEnjoinable conductTrade secrets
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. McGregor

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction that barred the defendant from proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Despite the Board ordering the defendant's case reopened, the plaintiff had only sought a preliminary injunction. A critical prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, irreparable injury, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order of the Supreme Court. The injunction against the defendant was unanimously vacated.

InjunctionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardReversedVacatedAppellate ReviewCPLR 6312
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. Daniel

Walter Daniel and the Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local Union No. 1442 sued the Dallas Independent School District and its officials for wrongful termination of Daniel's employment, alleging it was due to his union membership, grievance presentations, and testimony in a prior lawsuit. The trial court granted a temporary mandatory injunction, reinstating Daniel, and found his discharge unlawful under Texas statutes and the State Constitution. The defendants appealed this injunction. The appellate court, presided over by Chief Justice Dixon, reversed the trial court's order, ruling that it erred by deciding the ultimate factual issues of the case in a preliminary hearing for a temporary injunction. The appellate court emphasized that a temporary injunction should not grant substantially all the relief obtainable in a final hearing.

wrongful terminationunion membershiptemporary injunctionlabor lawTexas Constitutionappellate proceduredue processfreedom of assemblyjudicial discretionadministrative remedies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1990

Bergin v. Peplowski

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a common driveway. Despite the injunction, defendants continued to obstruct access. Plaintiff moved to hold defendants in contempt, which the Supreme Court granted, imposing a fine and counsel fees. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the contempt finding, concluding that the preliminary injunction's mandate was clear and defendants' disobedience was proven. The court rejected defendants' arguments regarding the injunction's precision, its breadth, and the necessity of a hearing, finding sufficient factual basis in the submitted papers.

Contempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionCommon DrivewayObstructionCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewCourt Order EnforcementProperty RightsJudiciary LawMotion Practice
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,736 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