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

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2006

In re Kadiatou B.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which dismissed a derivative neglect petition against respondent parents. The petition was based on a prior finding of child abuse in 2002, stemming from the 1999 death of their three-month-old baby, Kadiatou, due to blunt impact to the head and multiple skull fractures. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, finding that the prior abuse finding was inconclusive regarding the parents' direct role and was sufficiently remote in time. Furthermore, the court noted significant positive changes in the parents' behavior, their successful completion of parenting skills courses, individual psychotherapy, and continued engagement with family services. The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) failed to present specific evidence linking Kadiatou's injuries to intentional parental conduct or demonstrating a continued faulty understanding of parental duties.

Child NeglectChild AbuseDerivative NeglectParental DutiesChange in CircumstancesRes Ipsa LoquiturMedical Examiner FindingsHomicideSkull FracturesFamily Court Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. E2008-00511-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2009

John Doe, Joe and Jane Doe v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Children's Services

This case concerns an appeal by John Doe and his parents against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. John Doe, then a minor, was placed on a "secret, government maintained ‘indicated’ perpetrator list" without being afforded due process, leading to the plaintiffs' legal challenge. The Chancery Court for Knox County dismissed the action, ruling it was not "ripe" because there was no allegation of the department releasing Doe's name from the list, which would trigger a hearing under revised rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. However, the appellate court based its decision on John Doe's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not requesting an available administrative hearing, which he was entitled to under the rules in effect at the time of the incident, prior to initiating a direct appeal.

Due processChild abuseAdministrative lawRipeness doctrineAppellate reviewTennessee lawConstitutional rightsMinor's rightsExhaustion of remediesGovernment list
References
1
Case No. 13-20-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, as Surviving Parents of Brittany Dawn Grove v. USI Industrial Services, Inc.

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, parents of Brittany Dawn Grove, appealed a summary judgment granted to USI Industrial Services, Inc. The Groves brought claims against USI based on respondeat superior and non-employee mission liability after a fatal auto accident involving USI's former employees, Roberto Rodriguez and Alejandro Ayala, and Brittany Grove. The accident occurred while Rodriguez and Ayala were traveling home after being terminated from USI. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Rodriguez's employment status with USI at the time of the accident. Additionally, the court found that USI did not control the manner or route of travel for the non-employees, thereby negating non-employee mission liability.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityNon-Employee Mission LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealEmployment TerminationCourse and Scope of EmploymentFatal Auto AccidentAffidavit EvidenceJudicial ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Nahia M.

The respondent appealed a Family Court order from Tompkins County, entered June 21, 2006, which terminated her parental rights to her two older sons, Nahia M. and Nary an M., following a finding of permanent neglect. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship by providing various services, including parenting classes, counseling, and supervised visitation, and appropriately considered the respondent's medical condition. The court also determined that the respondent failed to realistically plan for the children's future, as evidenced by her inconsistent involvement in their care and special education. Ultimately, the appellate panel concluded that termination of parental rights served the children's best interests, given their special needs, extensive time in foster care, and the foster mother's desire to adopt.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDiligent EffortsSpecial Needs ChildrenFamily Court AppealSocial Services LawBest Interests of the ChildFoster CareMedical ConditionVisitation
References
7
Case No. M2013-01019-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

Joe Houghland Hooper, III v. Amanda Marie Bures Hooper

This divorce case involves an appeal by Father regarding the denial of his motion to suspend Mother's parenting time and the reduction of her child support, as well as a request to modify the parenting schedule. Mother cross-appealed the trial court's calculation of her parenting time days for child support determination. The Court of Appeals found an error in the trial court's calculation of Mother's residential parenting days, leading to the vacating of the child support award and a remand for recalculation. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, including the denial of the motion to suspend parenting time and the existing parenting schedule.

Divorce ActionChild Support CalculationParenting ScheduleAppellate ReviewChild CustodyMarital DissolutionParenting PlanTrial Court ErrorRemand for RecalculationBest Interest of the Child
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,774 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