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

In re the Arbitration between Stowe & Aircooled Motors, Inc.

This case involves a motion to compel arbitration under section 1450 of the Civil Practice Act, related to the discharge of Gerald Mersfelder. A cross-motion was filed to dismiss the application. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding the local union's standing as a contracting party, affirming its involvement. It was determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not cover all disputes, particularly unfair labor practices which fall under the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction. The court also considered its own jurisdiction under the Civil Practice Act, noting that the controversy arose before amendments broadening the scope of arbitrable subjects took effect. Ultimately, the court found no basis for arbitration as the grievance did not involve the interpretation or application of the contract's provisions.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJurisdictionCivil Practice ActMotion to CompelMotion to DismissUnion RightsContract Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Buffalo, N. Y., Inc. & Mordino

The order of Erie Special Term, which granted a petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration and denied a cross motion to compel arbitration and other relief, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court also awarded $10 in costs and disbursements. The decision was unanimous, with Justices McCurn, Vaughan, Williams, Bastow, and Goldman presiding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsUnanimous DecisionErie Special Term
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruedemann v. Energy Operators, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles Ruedemann initiated a personal injury lawsuit after sustaining injuries on a drilling platform off the coast of Africa. He sued several entities, including Energy Operators, Inc. (EOI) and CMS Oil and Gas Company. EOI and CMS Oil subsequently filed motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation, citing an arbitration clause in Ruedemann's Independent Contractor Agreement, which designated Texas law for governance. The Court, presided over by District Judge Kent, denied both motions. It concluded that Ruedemann's personal injury claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement under Texas law, as they did not require reference to the contract to be maintained.

ArbitrationPersonal InjuryIndependent ContractorChoice of LawTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to CompelDrilling PlatformNegligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. JNJ Express, Inc.

The case involves a motion to compel arbitration filed by JNJ Express, Inc. against Marion and Mervin Carney. The Carneys, independent truck drivers, had lease agreements with JNJ, which included an arbitration clause. They filed a complaint in state court alleging violations of Truth in Leasing Regulations (TIL) and breach of contract, without first attempting face-to-face resolution as stipulated by the arbitration agreement. JNJ removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, arguing the Carneys were independent contractors, not employees, and thus subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the Carneys were employees (exempt from FAA) or independent contractors and found them to be independent contractors. Consequently, the court granted JNJ's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

ArbitrationIndependent ContractorFederal Arbitration ActTruth in Leasing RegulationsMotor CarrierLease AgreementInterstate CommerceTruck DriversMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployment Status
References
14
Case No. EP-10-CA-127-FM
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2010

Mendez v. NEW BELL GENERAL SERVICES, LP

The case of Mayra Mendez v. New Bell General Services, L.P. concerns a dispute over an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff Mayra Mendez filed negligence and ERISA claims following an on-the-job injury. Defendants sought to compel arbitration under an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan, while Mendez argued the agreement was illusory and waived. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, ruled that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable due to consideration from provided benefits. It found Mendez's state law claims fell within the agreement's scope and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and denied Mendez's motion for sanctions.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActAt-will EmploymentContract ValidityIllusory PromiseConsiderationTexas LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationMotion for SanctionsRule 11
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between Carborundum Co. & Wagner

The court affirmed an order that granted a stay to the petitioner in arbitration proceedings. Additionally, the order denied a motion made by the unions to compel the petitioner to proceed with arbitration. The decision included an award of $10 costs and disbursements. All judges concurred with the ruling.

arbitrationstay of proceedingsmotion practicecosts and disbursementspanel decision
References
0
Case No. MDL-1446, Civ. H-01-3624
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative

This case involves motions to compel arbitration filed by various Enron-related insureds (including EBS Defendants, Skilling, Hannon, Koenig, and Fastow) against Excess Insurers. The dispute centers on D&O liability policy proceeds, with the Excess Insurers initiating an interpleader action to distribute the remaining $200 million. The court analyzed the applicability of arbitration provisions, considering 'follow form' language and conflicting choice-of-law clauses between primary and excess policies. It also addressed whether criminal defense costs are covered and if guilty pleas trigger dishonesty exclusions, applying judicial estoppel to some defendants. The court ultimately denied the motions to compel arbitration, finding the AEGIS policy's arbitration non-binding, other clauses too vague, and Fastow's claims not covered due to judicial estoppel. The interpleader action is stayed for specific motions, while general discovery continues.

ArbitrationInsurance LawDirectors and Officers (D&O) LiabilityExcess Insurance PoliciesInterpleader ActionFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCriminal Defense Costs
References
159
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

950 Corbindale, L.P. v. Kotts Capital Holdings Ltd. Partnership

This accelerated interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The dispute involves three limited partnerships formed in 2004 for real estate acquisition and management. The partnership agreements contained a broad arbitration clause, but limited arbitrators to awarding "compensatory damages only." Appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, LP and Kotts Capital Holdings, Inc., sought declaratory relief in district court after an offer to purchase the properties was rejected. Appellants, including 950 Corbindale, L.P. and others, moved to compel arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the agreement's scope. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court held the arbitration agreements were valid and the dispute, including the request for declaratory relief, was within the scope of arbitration, despite the damages limitation. The court reasoned that "compensatory damages only" modified the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant other forms of relief. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration ClausePartnership DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealContract InterpretationScope of ArbitrationCompensatory DamagesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Triple P Realty Corp. & Peoria Penny Park, Inc.

This case involves a motion to stay arbitration concerning a contract for the purchase of real estate, construction of a garage, and a long-term net lease. The contract included an arbitration clause for disputes 'pertaining to the terms of this agreement.' The respondent sought to use arbitration not to interpret existing terms, but to incorporate new or changed terms due to altered circumstances. The court ruled that arbitration cannot be compelled for controversies beyond the explicit scope of the contract. It further stated that the arbitration clause's language was not specific enough to permit modification of the contract's terms through arbitration. Consequently, the petitioner's application to stay arbitration was granted, and the respondent's cross-motion was denied.

ArbitrationContract DisputeReal EstateScope of ArbitrationContract ModificationStay of ArbitrationCommercial TransactionsJudicial ReviewArbitration ClauseAgreement Terms
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie Basin Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Marine Terminal & Warehousemen's Local 976-4

Plaintiff instituted an action against the International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO, under the Taft-Hartley Act for alleged breach of their collective bargaining agreement. The defendant moved to compel arbitration of the dispute, citing an arbitration clause in the agreement. Plaintiff argued that the clause was not applicable, was too narrow, and that being out of business negated the arbitration requirement. The court, referencing established precedent, determined that the agreement clearly intended for such disputes to be arbitrated. The court found that the "disputes or controversies" language encompassed employer claims and and that the plaintiff's business status did not alter the obligation to arbitrate. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, compelling the plaintiff to submit its claim to arbitration.

Taft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseBreach of ContractMotion to Compel ArbitrationLabor LawFederal CourtStatutory InterpretationDispute ResolutionContractual Obligation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 15,148 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