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

Monopoli v. County of Nassau

Justice S. Miller dissents from the majority's decision to grant summary judgment to the County of Nassau. The case concerns plaintiff Barry Monopoli, who fell from his bicycle due to a tree stump on Merrick Road. An eyewitness testified seeing workers, believed to be from Nassau County, cut down the tree and later place traffic cones near the stump. Justice Miller argues that this eyewitness testimony creates a genuine issue of fact regarding the County's role in creating the dangerous condition, precluding summary judgment. Therefore, the dissent advocates for reversing the order and denying the County's motion.

Tree stump accidentBicycle fallDangerous conditionSummary judgmentEyewitness testimonyNassau CountyMunicipal liabilityDissenting opinionFactual disputePremises liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lens Express, Inc. v. Ewald

Lens Express, Inc. and Managed Vision, Inc. appealed a summary judgment upholding the Texas Optometry Act against their challenges. They argued that the Act's requirements for physical prescriptions and prohibitions on preferred provider agreements created a monopoly and violated due process. The court applied a rational-relationship standard, finding the Act rationally related to a legitimate public health interest. The court also determined that the presence of numerous licensed optometrists negated claims of a monopoly. Additionally, the trial court's dismissal of a request for a declaratory judgment regarding agreements between Managed Vision and Texas optometrists was affirmed based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Texas Optometry ActSummary JudgmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMonopolyPrimary JurisdictionOptometry RegulationContact LensesMail-order SalesAdministrative Law
References
23
Case No. 03-94-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Lens Express, Inc. & Managed Vision, Inc. v. Lois Ewald, as Executive Director of the Texas Optometry Board Dan Morales, Individually and as Attorney General of the State of Texas And Texas Optometric Association, Inc.

Lens Express, Inc. and Managed Vision, Inc. appealed a summary judgment that upheld the Texas Optometry Act and related Board Rules. Appellants argued that the Act violated due process and equal protection by creating a monopoly and restricting their ability to dispense contact lenses by mail. They also contested the dismissal of their request for a declaratory judgment regarding agreements with Texas optometrists. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, applying the rational-relationship standard of review. The court found that the Act served a legitimate public health interest, that no monopoly existed due to the numerous licensed optometrists, and that the administrative agency had primary jurisdiction over the agreements.

Optometry ActConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionMonopoly ClaimsSummary Judgment AppealPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative Agency ReviewState RegulationPublic Health Interest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maisel v. Sigman

Plaintiffs, Maisel & Co., a manufacturing jobber, initiated an action against the Joint Board of Cloak, Skirt, Dress and Reefer Makers’ Union and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. They sought to invalidate a contract signed on July 5, 1923, alleging it was procured under duress and violated anti-monopoly and Penal Laws, besides lacking mutuality. The contract arose from a labor dispute and a strike after Maisel & Co. attempted to reorganize its business, leading to reduced in-house manufacturing and increased reliance on subcontractors. The court, presided over by Burr, J., meticulously reviewed the negotiations leading to the agreement and the subsequent actions of the plaintiffs, concluding that duress was not established. Furthermore, the court analyzed the contract's provisions against claims of illegality, finding that it did not create an illegal monopoly or violate labor laws, asserting workers' rights to combine and negotiate terms. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the agreement, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, and granted judgment in favor of the defendants.

Contract disputeLabor disputeUnion agreementDuress defenseCoercionAnti-monopoly lawPenal law violationRestraint of tradeCollective bargainingStrike action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiff, a metropolitan hospital authority, sued Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other defendants for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants conspired to manipulate the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) process to secure a monopoly for generic enoxaparin, leading to inflated prices. The Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling objections regarding venue and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. However, the Court sustained an objection regarding the indirect purchaser rule, dismissing Plaintiff's claims for damages as the 'cost-plus' exception did not apply due to the lack of a fixed-quantity contract. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, however, were allowed to proceed.

AntitrustSherman ActIndirect Purchaser RuleNoerr-Pennington DoctrineVenue TransferMonopolyEnoxaparinPharmaceuticalsPatent LawUSP Standards
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Primerica Corp.

Plaintiff's agency with National Benefit Life Insurance Company was terminated, leading to an antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as state law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found no concerted action under Sherman Act § 1 due to the corporate structure and dismissed the Clayton Act § 7 claim as inapplicable to this case. Furthermore, the Sherman Act § 2 monopolization claim failed as the defendant's 19% market share was insufficient to establish monopoly power. Consequently, the pendent state law claims for Donnelly Act violation and breach of contract were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActClayton ActMonopolyAttempted MonopolizationSummary JudgmentCorporate StructureWholly-Owned SubsidiaryMarket SharePendent Jurisdiction
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farulla v. Freundlich, Inc.

The plaintiff labor union, representing the doll and toy industry in New York City, sought an injunction against a defendant manufacturer for violating an arbitration award. The award, issued on May 25, 1934, mandated "closed shops" and other employment terms following an agreement reached under the New York Regional Labor Board. The defendant was accused of moving its factory to Massachusetts to avoid union labor, paying subminimum wages, and other breaches. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenman, affirmed the enforceability of the industrial arbitration agreement, ruling it was not void under the National Industrial Recovery Act nor an illegal monopoly. A preliminary injunction was granted to prevent violations of the award, although the factory's relocation itself was not enjoined at this preliminary stage.

Labor LawArbitration AwardInjunctionClosed ShopNational Industrial Recovery ActCollective Bargaining AgreementContract BreachIndustrial RelationsUnion RightsEmployer Obligations
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas General Drivers, Ware-Housemen & Helpers v. Wamix, Inc.

Wamix, Inc. initiated a suit for damages and sought a temporary injunction against Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union 745 and several individuals. The core of the dispute involved allegations of unlawful secondary picketing by the defendants, which interfered with Wamix's business by causing its customers' employees to stop work. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, concluding that the defendants' actions violated Texas state anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, and noting that the National Labor Relations Board had declined jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed the decision and affirmed the trial court's order, asserting state court jurisdiction over the damage suit and the power to grant injunctive relief to maintain the status quo.

Labor DisputeTemporary InjunctionSecondary PicketingUnlawful ConspiracyDamagesTexas LawState JurisdictionNational Labor Relations BoardFreedom of SpeechAnti-trust
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harper v. Local Union No. 520, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Local Union No. 520, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and its members sued contractors W. O. Harper and O. C. Linscomb to enforce a collective bargaining agreement mandating the employment of only union members. The contractors appealed a temporary injunction, arguing the agreement was unilateral, an unenforceable personal service contract lacking mutuality of remedy, and against public policy by creating a monopoly. The court affirmed the injunction, holding the agreement implied reciprocal obligations for the union, was not a personal service contract in its collective aspect, and was enforceable by injunction due to the inadequacy of legal remedies. Furthermore, the court found no evidence the contract violated public policy, as not all local contractors were bound, and the primary motive for breach was economic unprofitability, not an unlawful purpose.

Labor LawCollective BargainingUnion ContractContract EnforcementTemporary InjunctionSpecific PerformanceMutuality of ObligationPublic PolicyAntitrust LawTexas Civil Statutes
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alternative Electrodes, LLC v. Empi, Inc.

Plaintiff Alternative Electrodes, LLC (AEL) sued Empi, Inc. and Encore Medical, L.P. for violations of the Lanham Act, Sherman Act, and various New York state laws, including illegal monopoly, false advertising, and tortious interference. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except the Lanham Act claim. The court denied dismissal for AEL's Sherman Act, Donnelly Act, and breach of contract claims, finding sufficient allegations of antitrust injury, market definition, and breach of a settlement agreement. However, the state law claims for business disparagement/injurious falsehood and tortious interference were dismissed without prejudice, as AEL failed to adequately plead special damages and 'but for' causation, respectively. The civil conspiracy claim, alleged as an independent tort, was also dismissed.

Antitrust LawSherman ActLanham ActBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Monopoly Power
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 19 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