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

Golden v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Three former employees of Ohio Barge Line, Inc. (Ohio) filed separate actions against Ohio, its parent United States Steel Corporation, and subsidiary Bradley Transportation Line for wrongful discharge. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its representatives were also joined as defendants in two of the actions. Ohio moved to vacate the service of process and dismiss the complaints, arguing it was not doing business in New York and thus not amenable to service there. The court found that Ohio, a separate Pennsylvania-incorporated subsidiary, was not subject to New York jurisdiction, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the parent company's presence extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Ohio's motions to dismiss and quashed the service of process.

JurisdictionService of ProcessCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management and Disclosure ActDistrict CourtIntercorporate Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1983

Baxter v. Fulton Ice & Cube Co.

Raymond Baxter was injured while using an ice bagger machine and sued his employer, Fulton Ice & Cube, and several manufacturers/distributors, including Ohio Gear, Inc. His employer defaulted, leading to an inquest where Baxter was awarded $100,000. Ohio Gear then attempted to limit Baxter's potential recovery against them to this $100,000 by invoking collateral estoppel. Special Term denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the damages vigorously during the inquest against a judgment-proof defendant, therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to cap the recovery against Ohio Gear, Inc.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionDefault JudgmentInquestDamagesFull and Fair OpportunityJudgment ProofPersonal InjuryManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ohio Reinsurance Corp. v. British National Insurance

Plaintiff Ohio Reinsurance Corporation sued British National Insurance Company Limited and British National Life Insurance Society Limited in the Southern District of New York, seeking reformation of a reinsurance contract and a declaration of rights. Ohio Re contended an unwritten understanding regarding casualty insurance limits led to overpayment, while defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration. Citing a broad arbitration clause in the contract and the Federal Arbitration Act, the court found the dispute arbitrable. The court rejected Ohio Re's arguments that contract reformation was outside the arbitration scope or an English arbitrator's power. Consequently, the defendants' motion to stay the action pending arbitration was granted.

Reinsurance ContractContract ReformationArbitration ClauseFederal Arbitration ActStay of ProceedingsDiversity JurisdictionEnglish LawSouthern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
11
Case No. ADJ589625 (ANA 0373659)
Regular
Oct 28, 2008

Lonnie Shelton vs. CALVALIERS HOLDINGS COMPANY, LLC, DBA CLEVELAND CAVALIERS, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to remove the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (OBWC) as a defendant. The Board found that OBWC, as an Ohio state agency, is not authorized to write workers' compensation insurance in California and therefore cannot be held liable for awards made in California. The employer, Cleveland Cavaliers, was found to have failed to secure proper compensation insurance under California law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalvaliers Holdings CompanyOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationCumulative trauma injuryProfessional basketball playerPersonal jurisdictionLabor Code section 3700Out-of-state insurerInsufficient minimum contactsDue process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bricklayers & Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd.

This case involves a putative class action brought by pension funds, Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund and DeKalb County Pension Fund, against Transocean Ltd. and its CEOs, Robert Long and Jon A. Marshall. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, claiming that a 2007 merger proxy statement contained false and misleading information about Transocean's environmental compliance, safety protocols, and training programs. The subsequent Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 allegedly revealed these deficiencies, causing a significant drop in Transocean's stock price and shareholder losses. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted dismissal without prejudice for Bricklayers' claims and against Transocean Ltd., but denied the motion in all other respects, allowing DeKalb's claims and those against individual defendants to proceed, while granting leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudProxy StatementMergerDeepwater HorizonOil SpillEnvironmental Law ComplianceCorporate GovernanceShareholder RightsMotion to DismissLoss Causation
References
41
Case No. 17-09006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

General Motors LLC v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)

Plaintiff General Motors LLC initiated an adversary proceeding against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that its state court action in Ohio against the Manville Trust was not enjoined by the channeling injunction from the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 reorganization plan. GM's Ohio action aimed to hold the Manville Trust liable under Ohio Revised Code § 4123.931 for an employee's widow's failure to notify GM of asbestos settlements. The court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the Manville Trust's abstention arguments. It found that GM's claim against the Manville Trust, whether characterized as subrogation or contribution, constituted an "Other Asbestos Obligation" and was therefore explicitly barred by the Manville Plan's channeling injunction and the Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP). Consequently, the court enjoined GM from pursuing its Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcy InjunctionChanneling InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentManville TrustTrust Distribution ProceduresOhio LawSubrogation ClaimsContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty USA Corp. v. Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC

Liberty USA Corporation sued Buyer's Choice Insurance Agency LLC and Terry S. Jacobs for $183,333.00 due on a Promissory Note. Defendants, after removing the case to federal court in the Southern District of New York, moved to dismiss or transfer venue. The central issue was conflicting forum selection clauses in the Promissory Note (New York) and an Asset Purchase Agreement (Ohio), both part of the same transaction. Applying contract interpretation principles from both New York and Ohio law, the court determined the Asset Purchase Agreement's Ohio forum selection clause superseded the Promissory Note's clause. Lacking statutory authority to transfer to a state court, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.

Forum Selection ClausePromissory NoteAsset Purchase AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionTransfer of VenueDiversity JurisdictionContract InterpretationOhio LawNew York Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cintas Corp. v. Unite Here

Cintas Corporation and its affiliates sued UNITE HERE, Change To Win, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and several individuals, alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Lanham Act, and Ohio state law. Cintas accused the defendants of orchestrating a "Corporate Campaign" to pressure them into a card-check/neutrality agreement, involving disparaging websites and communications targeting Cintas's customers and investors. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Cintas failed to establish predicate acts for the RICO claims (attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act and Ohio law). Additionally, the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting were dismissed due to lack of likelihood of confusion, commercial use for profit, or bad faith intent to profit. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Ohio state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire action.

RICOLanham ActTrademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionTrademark DilutionCybersquattingHobbs ActLabor UnionsCorporate CampaignFreedom of Speech
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. ADJ6836629
Regular
Oct 01, 2013

EVERSON WALLS vs. BALTIMORE RAVENS fka CLEVELAND BROWNS, NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA INSURANCE GROUP c/o GALLAGHER BASSETT and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA c/o CHARTIS CLAIMS INC., DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Everson Walls' workers' compensation claim against the Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens) for an injury sustained while playing professional football. The Board found that Walls was only temporarily employed in California and that the Browns, as a self-insured Ohio employer, provided coverage under Ohio law, which reciprocates California's extraterritorial provisions. Consequently, the Browns are exempted from California workers' compensation law under Labor Code §3600.5(b), and are therefore dismissed from the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §3600.5(b)National Football LeagueNFLProfessional Football PlayerCumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Employee ExemptionExtraterritorial CoverageOhio Bureau of Workers' CompensationSelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 45 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