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

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2008

Mahoney v. Turner Construction Co.

Plaintiff, injured in a construction accident, filed suit against Turner, FDA, and Williams defendants. Plaintiff subsequently settled with Turner and FDA, but the terms remained confidential. The Williams defendants sought to compel disclosure of the settlement agreement, citing its relevance under General Obligations Law § 15-108. The Supreme Court initially granted disclosure only for the settlement amount. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, remanding the case for an in camera inspection of the settlement agreement. The court emphasized the need to balance public policy promoting settlements with a non-settling party's right to discover material and necessary information, suggesting a protective order could safeguard confidentiality.

Settlement Agreement DisclosureConfidentiality ClausesIn Camera InspectionMaterial and Necessary InformationProtective OrdersGeneral Obligations LawCPLRConstruction Site AccidentContribution and IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 15-0502
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2017

Noble Energy, Inc. v. Conocophillips Company

Justice Johnson dissents from the Court's decision, arguing that Alma's assignment of an executory Exchange Agreement in bankruptcy was not properly executed. The dissent highlights that the Exchange Agreement was not disclosed during bankruptcy, contending that general plan language is insufficient for assumption and assignment under Bankruptcy Code section 365 without explicit assumption and court approval. Johnson asserts that the risk of non-disclosure falls on the debtor, Alma, and that Noble, as the asset purchaser, should not be liable for an undisclosed indemnity obligation. The opinion concludes that the Exchange Agreement should 'ride through' bankruptcy, leaving Alma responsible for the liability, rather than Noble.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsContract AssignmentDebtor DisclosureSection 365Dissenting OpinionTexas Supreme CourtAsset Purchase AgreementIndemnificationCorporate Liability
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griffith v. STEINER WILLIAMSBURG, LLC

Plaintiffs Anastasia Griffith and Alan Weissman sued Steiner Williamsburg, LLC, seeking to revoke their condominium purchase agreements and recover deposits, alleging Steiner violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). Steiner countered that plaintiffs breached the agreements and sought to retain deposits. The central issue was whether ILSA's 100-lot exemption applied, depending on if it was determined at the time of purchase or later. The court ruled that the exemption's applicability is determined when the purchaser signs the agreement. As Steiner's condominium had 123 non-exempt units at the time of purchase and no property report was provided, the court found Steiner in violation of ILSA. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Steiner's motion was denied.

Interstate Land SalesFull Disclosure ActCondominium PurchaseDeveloper ObligationsProperty ReportContract RevocationStatutory InterpretationILSA ExemptionSummary JudgmentConsumer Protection
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Albemarle Corp.

This case involves an appeal by MEMC Electronic Materials and MEMC Pasadena (collectively MEMC) challenging a trial court's order. The order granted partial summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation and denied MEMC's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Albemarle sought indemnification from MEMC for payments made to Ethyl Corporation, which had indemnified Ethyl for claims arising from a plant fire. MEMC argued that their Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Albemarle did not obligate them to indemnify Albemarle for this specific liability, citing clauses concerning assumed obligations, non-disclosure of the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement, and the timing of the liability's origin. The court analyzed Sections 3.4, 4.16, and 7.4 of the APA, ultimately concluding that MEMC had not assumed the obligation for the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement. It found that the payment made by Albemarle to Ethyl arose from a prior contractual relationship, not from operations of the plant on or after the closing date of the APA between MEMC and Albemarle. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of MEMC.

Contract InterpretationIndemnification AgreementAsset Purchase AgreementSummary JudgmentTexas LawVirginia LawCorporate LiabilityPre-existing ContractsPost-closing OperationsAffiliate Agreements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

May v. Scott

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs Max May and Billy Thompson and Defendant Lawrence Scott concerning Scott's acquisition of Memphis Equipment Company (MEC) and subsequent financial misconduct. Scott, then President of MEC, orchestrated the purchase of MEC stock from its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (MEC ESOP) in 1999 without the knowledge or approval of other board members, leading to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA violations. The Court had previously granted partial summary judgment against Scott for breaching fiduciary duties under Tennessee law and for failing to disclose the stock purchase transaction under ERISA. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found Scott liable for wrongful conversion of MEC funds for personal use, awarding $172,203.66 in damages. Additionally, for ERISA violations related to the non-disclosure, Scott was found personally liable to restore $455,720.78 to the MEC ESOP, and his interest in the ESOP was forfeited. The Court also granted injunctive relief against Scott and awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanCorporate GovernanceFraudulent ConcealmentConversionShareholder Derivative ActionInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Francis

This case concerns a bench trial to determine if three non-marital children (J, D, and S) are entitled to inherit from the decedent under EPTL 4-1.2 (a) (2) (C). The children's mother, the petitioner, presented extensive evidence of the decedent's relationship with her and the children, including cohabitation, financial support, and introductions to his family. The respondent, the decedent's spouse, contested this claim, asserting the decedent denied fathering other children and consistently resided with her. The court, finding the petitioner's evidence clear and convincing, concluded that the decedent openly and notoriously acknowledged paternity of the children, citing photographic evidence, rental agreements, tax returns, and testimony from both families. Consequently, the court ruled that J, D, and S are entitled to inherit from the decedent as his non-marital children.

Inheritance LawNon-marital ChildrenPaternityEPTL 4-1.2Clear and Convincing EvidenceOpen and Notorious AcknowledgmentEstate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFamily LawDistributees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2010

Altonen v. Kmart of NY Holdings, Inc.

In a personal injury action, the defendants appealed a Supreme Court order from Suffolk County. The order denied their cross motion seeking to compel the plaintiffs to produce a confidential settlement agreement from unrelated prior actions. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the lower court had providently exercised its discretion. The settlement agreement was deemed not material and necessary to the defendants' defense in the current action, thus upholding its non-disclosure.

Personal InjuryDamagesDiscoverySettlement AgreementConfidentialityAppellate ReviewCross MotionMaterial and NecessaryCPLR
References
2
Case No. ADJ8651900 ADJ8649841 ADJ9547623 ADJ9547622
Regular
Aug 29, 2017

JOSE FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. ACE MACHINE SHOP, ICW GROUP/ EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal of an order rescinding a previously approved Compromise and Release agreement. The applicant had alleged attorney pressure and non-disclosure of a psychiatric injury report, leading the WCJ to rescind the approval. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant. The Board determined that reconsideration is an adequate remedy if the WCJ ultimately sets aside the agreement, and the matter will proceed to a status conference.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseRescinding OrderGood CauseWCJLabor Code Section 5310WCAB Rule 10859Mandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release Agreement
References
2
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,073 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