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

Diabo v. Delisle

Shaynah J. Diabo (mother) initiated a federal action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention seeking the return of her minor child from the child's father and paternal grandparents. A previous April 2006 Order mandated the child's return to the mother in Canada and prohibited parties from seeking further custody orders. When the father subsequently filed a custody proceeding in Onondaga County Family Court, the mother sought a permanent injunction in federal court. The court granted the permanent injunction, finding that the state court action was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' and 'relitigation' exceptions. The federal court held that its retained jurisdiction and prior judgment on the child's best interest and habitual residence in Canada precluded relitigation of these issues in state court. The court also dismissed George M. Raus as a respondent and vacated an earlier Access Agreement, while directing the father to arrange visitation through a mediation center in Canada.

Child AbductionICARAHague ConventionPermanent InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Court InterferenceFamily Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic-Pacific Manufacturing Corp. v. Quinnonez

The employer sued two unions for damages and a permanent injunction, alleging a conspiracy to harm its business through unlawful picketing and other coercive acts. The unions engaged in continuous and often violent conduct, including physical altercations, obstruction of deliveries, and harassment, to pressure the employer despite one union lacking majority representation. The court found that the unions' actions, particularly the Seafarers', had an unlawful objective of coercing employees into joining the union, a violation of state labor law and the state constitution. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting all picketing and associated unlawful conduct by both defendant unions due to the pervasive violence. However, the claim for damages against the union officers was dismissed because the complaint failed to allege that individual union members authorized or ratified the tortious acts.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful CoercionUnion LiabilityDamages DismissedState ConstitutionLabor LawCivil Practice ActEmployer Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. City of Bridge City

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, its executive director, and the Subsequent Injury Fund appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction. The trial court had ruled that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's immediate payment requirement during appeals to the Appeals Panel, without reimbursement, violated constitutional property rights, access to courts, and constituted an illegal taking. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, dissolved the injunction, and rendered judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Act. The court reasoned that municipal corporations cannot assert Article I constitutional rights against legislative acts, and that the challenged scheme was rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring prompt payment to injured workers, given the robust contested-case procedures and short appeals panel timelines. The brief interim period without reimbursement was deemed a rational legislative compromise within a complex economic field.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessTexas ConstitutionReimbursement SchemeMunicipal CorporationsIntergovernmental Risk Pool
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scharf v. Doe

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from picketing its jewelry store. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. This decision was unanimously affirmed by the panel of judges.

permanent injunctioninjunction pendente litepicketinglabor disputeaffirmationmotion to dismissjewelry storeappellate court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AFA Protective Systems v. Local Union No. 3

This case concerns an action brought by AFA, a company installing and servicing alarm systems, against a defendant union, seeking a permanent injunction and damages for alleged acts during a labor dispute. The dispute arose from stalled negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, culminating in a strike in February 1972. AFA accused the union of disorderly picketing, individual acts of harassment against non-striking employees, and two sit-ins at AFA's premises. The union moved to dismiss the complaint, citing federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act. The court, after reviewing the evidence and considering an NLRB determination that refused to issue a complaint against the union for related charges, concluded that the incidents did not warrant State court jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was granted.

Labor DisputePermanent InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesFederal Pre-emptionNational Labor Relations ActPicketingSit-down StrikeJurisdictionCollective BargainingNLRB
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Modern Transfer Co. v. Inland Terminal Workers Union, Local 1730

This case concerns an action for a permanent injunction and money damages brought by unnamed plaintiffs, identified as interstate carriers, against unnamed defendants, including a union. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from picketing their premises and misrepresenting a lockout. Defendants, however, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to federal pre-emption. The court found that because plaintiffs are interstate carriers and the dispute involved alleged unfair labor practices without violence, the matter fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, as established by federal statutes (29 U.S.C. §§ 158, 159) and Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Pre-emptionLabor DisputeInjunctionInterstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticesPicketingNational Labor Relations BoardFederal JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. McGregor

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction that barred the defendant from proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Despite the Board ordering the defendant's case reopened, the plaintiff had only sought a preliminary injunction. A critical prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, irreparable injury, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order of the Supreme Court. The injunction against the defendant was unanimously vacated.

InjunctionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardReversedVacatedAppellate ReviewCPLR 6312
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oklahoma Surety Co. v. Williams

The case involves an interpleader action filed by Oklahoma Surety Company against several defendants (James Williams, Rito Meza, Patricio Cano, Jr., Bertha Alicia Cano, and Elba Puentes) concerning uninsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff sought to withdraw tendered policy funds and obtain a declaratory judgment, arguing that defendants were barred from recovery by workers' compensation exclusivity provisions. The court granted the motion for withdrawal and declaratory judgment for defendants who received workers' compensation benefits, and dismissed claims against Defendant Puentes without prejudice due to lack of standing under New Mexico law. A permanent injunction was also granted, barring defendants from pursuing further claims against the uninsured motorist proceeds.

Workers' CompensationUninsured Motorist CoverageInterpleaderDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionStandingExclusivity ProvisionsTexas LawNew Mexico LawCommon Law Marriage
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durkin v. Shone

The plaintiff, an unnamed entity likely associated with the Department of Labor, filed suit against Allied Agencies seeking a permanent injunction for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint detailed the defendant's failure to adhere to minimum wage and overtime requirements, as well as inadequate record-keeping for its homeworkers. Allied Agencies argued that the homeworkers were independent contractors, that its operations were not interstate commerce, and that its business qualified for the FLSA's retail or service establishment exemption. The court ultimately ruled that the homeworkers were employees engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce, thus covered by the Act. Furthermore, the defendant failed to prove eligibility for the retail or service establishment exemption. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against Allied Agencies.

Fair Labor Standards ActMinimum WageOvertime CompensationHomeworkersIndependent ContractorsInterstate CommerceProduction of Goods for CommerceRetail or Service Establishment ExemptionWage and Hour DivisionInjunction
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 6,594 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